So he's still with the Republicans on the issue. Somebody had a thread on how darn empathetic the guy is.

Empathetic conservatism. What a change!

The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise.

will begin to expire later this summer.

Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise.

liam

just tell me one thing

did McCain call his wife a C%#T in public.

Women voters will love that.

I have to admit I'm confused by Liam's response, but moving on, I'm happy to have my anger, frustration and disappointment on this issue, politely acknowledged and my concerns addressed in a substantive, constructive way without dismissing me, as so many here and elsewhere have, as the behavior of a traitorous, trollish PUMA asshole.

I'm pleased the Senator will have his AG look into this once he's elected, but again, that's not a foregone conclusion. I was always going to vote for him and never considered this a deal breaker, so it's refreshing be heard and appreciated for participating.

Disagreement =/= McCain supporter. Thanks, Senator.

he's always admired jerking left knees

Refer to paragraph 6 and 8 of the hefe's statement.

The statement is a good one. I like the fact that while he held firm on his position, he seems aware of the problems and he said he's willing to take his lumps. I respect that he is taking the consequences seriously. And I respect the fact that he took the time to talk/write to his supporters as friends and as intelligent adults, some of whom he happens to disagree with.

I'm voting for him.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have.

Statements like this are why I support the guy.

At least I'm glad he's in charge of his own house. Good, thoughtful and timely response.

All this is, is Obama's version of Hillary's refusal to admit she was wrong on Iraq. Same losing logic in both instances. He has responded more smoothly but that's all. He's got the nomination now, he doesn't need to listen to anyone outside the beltway.

i think you've guys have misunderstood who barack obama is.

he is NOT a firebrand liberal lefty. he never has been.

yes, a lot of his base during the primary was, but that doesn't mean he was.

the one issue where he could go to the left of hillary clinton was the war. and even then, it seemed their only difference was that he was against it and she vote for it "with conviction".

other than that, she was far more liberal and "progressive" on most of the other issues than he was. (but i have to say, in my opinion his positions were better because they were actually more practical, if less "progressive" than hers.)

we didn't nominate a "kossac", you shouldn't be angry at him just because you're now realizing it.

also, on fisa, his hangup, (as i've said before but i think its important to show how his position has been misrepresented) was never the immunity. he was against it, and yes he said he would support a filibuster on any bill that contained immunity.
It's still quite possible that he would support a filibuster.

His main concern however, as a constitutional lawyer and professor, was about the oversight and protections this bill adds/restores (depending on your pov).

NOw, maybe he didn't emphasis this as much as he could have, but that's politics.

My point is, Obama has never been a "lefty liberal". He's not "moving to the center" or "making a hard right".

This is where he's been all along.

It just now seems his "base" is waking up to this fact.

I am very disappointed by Obama's new position on FISA and the illegal spying that this bill would immunize. The existing FISA legislation was absolutely no obstacle to conducting the kind of surveillance necessary to "keep us safe" from terrorists. I'm more concerned about who will "keep us safe" from government-- our government -- and corporate collusion in abridging fundamental liberties in this country.

I'll still vote for him. McSame is not an option. But not another penny of my money will he get.

I am remembering what Katrina Vanden Heuvel said on
This Week
last Sunday

"Let's remember we're electing a President not a Messiah!"

So many people, apparently including Obama, think it is the president's job to "keep us safe". That is an impossible job. We are unsafe in many ways, from traffic offenders, to corporate polluters, to overzealous police, to politicization of the Justice Department, to bad economic policies, to just about any other "danger" we face. The president's job is to execute the laws, and to protect the Constitution, which he swears to do on taking office.

There is only a minute threat to any of us from international terrorism. Are we all to become quivering cowards refusing to ever enter an aircraft just because a plane crashes? Or, should we become stay-at-home folks because a fog snarled hiway has a multiple car crash? Should we all move to the wide open spaces because there was a drive by shooting in a city last night? I would say no to all of those, and I would also say no, we should not be afraid of international terrorism just because there was one day of terrorist attacks on our country in the past umpteen years.

So, why don't we concentrate on having a president who will execute the laws, defend the Constitution, and oversee the foreign policy of this country? Leave FISA as it is and don't destroy the 4th amendment in a futile effort to "protect us".

Well this is my last FISA thread because I don't think it's a coincidence that McCain, along with the kiss-ass MSM, are hitting Obama for flip flopping at the same time a lot of new names are appearing on this website saying the same thing. Hopefully Greg will become as bored with ya'll as I am. I think the main thing I got from Obama's speech, except for the fact that I thought he was very respectful, was that he's ok with you not voting for him if FISA is a deal breaker for you. Now you are free to make your decision. Obama has made his.

Senator Obama you took a oath of office when you became a senator to protect and uphold the Constitution. When are you going to start doing that? The Constituton is not a issue difference. It the Constitution for God sakes!

Word of the day!

"This issue is becoming a palaver at this point."

I love it. I never heard that one either and its good.

Folks really need to chill out. As irritating at they may find it they will find a Supreme Court with yet another Alito/Thomas/Roberts a hell of a lot worse. FISA would be the least of our problems then. Anyone who retreats into their shell and sulks over this merely proves what I've hear people on the right saying for years: the left is to hysterical to win.

I think his response is, at best, disingenuous. There was no need to do ANYTHING about the FISA bill. It doesn't matter that what the Senate passed before was worse. The best thing that could happen would have been to do nothing. Instead, what they're doing is eviscerating the 4th amendment, and to what end? So that some mythical republican somewhere will not say he's weak on terror? Bullshit. And shame on all the sycophants who pretend Obama is being strong because he's standing up to those with enough principles to call him on this idiotic piece of legislation.

The biggest sycophants of all are the ones who pretend that those criticizing Obama on this issue are helping McCain win. No, Obama is helping McCain win by weaseling out on a valuable principle that he could easily explain. The criticism is an attempt to get Obama to show some true backbone and fight for this important issue. If he's not going to fight for something this important, and so easily won at that, don't expect him to fight for anything worthwhile, at all, ever.

yes, yes, I'm planning to vote for Obama, nothing would get me to vote for McCain. But so what? He should not be coddled with this capitulation, but criticized.

So good of him to capitulate on everything coming his way since the primaries are over.

--Ron

Many of you guys are falling into the same trap that Libertarians do. If you do that and reach a critical mass then you lead all of us to being like them, marginalized losers crying into our drinks while this great country descends into fascism.

People can disagree over interpretations of constitutional issues and still care about the constitution. Obama is clearly on the right side. He's also been clear that his is not entirely happy with this but feels that its the best he can do right now. He promised to do more later.

Ok, so you can go and self immolate in an insane idealogical purification ritual and try to take us all with you.

But do please reconsider.

There are far bigger constitutional issues at state and a hell of a lot more.

The last vote on the Supreme Court over Habeas Corpus was 5-4. We were just one vote shy of deciding that the president has the authority to arbitrarily lock people up with out any real right to redress by declaring them enemy combatants.

Just one vote to undermine the legal basis of democratic western civilization.

FISA doesn't touch this. Its not even close to what you lose with one more Alito/Roberts/Thomas on that damn court.

Please, get a grip.

this FISA crap is annoying, his position has been consistent throughout this whole election season. Obviously some obama fans weren't paying attention, I was and I don't see the issue. Its called bipartisanship not caving in just because you dont like republicans

http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/07/03/obama-as-a-normal-person/

I wish one reporter, opinion essayist, blogger would get John McCain's views on FISA for you republicans.

Hey!

I'm gonna do that.

"This whole issue is one that Obama could easily have won"

That I don't buy at all. Perhaps in the pure sense of an arguement in the Presidential campaign. But the problem is that he as of yet he has not won any office but a Senate seat. He may be the nominee but until he has the office he cannot command policy as though he did. Nancy Pelosi however holds the third most powerful office in the country. The congress and then the Senate were the leaders here. He can't push them around that much, there has to be cooperation and even if he was president it would be their job to try and push back at him.

So right now, that is who your real argument lies with.

I am not overly pleased with Obama's intended vote to grant telecon's immunity. However, John Dean has pointed out that this FISA bill only grants telecons immunity against civil lawsuits and not criminal lawsuits. Might Obama begin with instructing the DOJ to fire up those indictments?

"but we can't give Obama a free ride just because he's not McCain"

Sure, but then while you are screaming about Obama and FISA know what?

John McCain is getting a free ride and he voted for the compromise far more aggressively than Obama did.

Get as upset as you want. But he's the guy in the ring. Every time he has to turn around to explain himself to screams and boos from the people who should have his back the Republicans are going to go right for his back and they are.

This is just the reality. The fact that the Republicans do understand this and tend to distract their guys with this sort of stuff a lot less is exactly why they tend to win more often.

Of course they have a bad habit of keeping that up once they get them there. Unlike them we sure should hold him to everything when in an office.

But now they are the main problem.

I cannot imagine John McCain [or any other politician] behaving in a similar manner as Barack Obama.

Barack allowed his own web site to host a group which organized to voice and collect dissent against one of his stances. Then Barack took the time to address those concerned dissenters and to offer three top staffers for further dialogue on the issue.

Dunno, there is something in this that surely seems hopeful to me, after far too many years of believing that politicians just don't listen to, let alone respect citizens.

That's a good point DonnaG.

I also don't mean to disparage people speaking their mind. I just don't get the ultimately self destructive total angst of it all.

Joining your point to the this, Marc Ambinder wrote an article called "His Space" over at the Atlantic a while back that is looking incredibly prescient right now. http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/ambinder-obama

His conclusion pointing out the potential dangers of Obamas internet democracy seem particularly insightful considering what's been happening this week.

"sigh"

I guess I just don't understand idealogues.

For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions."

That is a LIE - this bill is NOT better than the previous bill - how many times does Feingold, Greenwald and others have to point out that is FISA Bill is NOT a compromise but a capitulation.

"And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have."

OUR!! Where the FUCK is it that DEMS ever had BUSH's position on this FISA BILL, the exact same one that Obama now has too? This is NOT OUR agreement - this Obama's position NOT THE DEMS position. AFTER Obama got nominated he doesn't need our opinion any more, is that it? Obama feels like he can do whatever he wants now - he acting like he's already elected to Office - This is NOT the position of the Democractic Party - this is ONLY Obama's position - okay, got that.

This won't do a great deal to make opponents of the bill happy. But it's a minor victory for those who built this group that Obama ultimately felt the need to respond to it. The rest of Obama's response here.

Oh *uck, you got-a-be-kidding right?

Yeah, well that "minor" VICTORY is a deal breaker pal, and not just some little nothing bill, the FISA Immunity is a criminal bill - a get out of jail bill, so it is an election losing one. Obama doesn't care what we think anymore - thanks to Dems that are like Sargent we don't have a represenative in this race anymore. Obama is outright lying to us, I don't even want to listen to him anymore - he has had his chance to explain himself and he didn't explain anything. he just makes up shit and tell us to get back inline. We HAVE to TAKE control of our govenment, not feel honored that Obama felt the need to reiterate his lies again to a bunch of what, what are they Mr. Sargent - a group of "unprincipled" Dems who want to know WHY Obama flip-flopped but get nothing in the way a earnest, worthwhile explanation? Nothing but a some high flying platitudes and a pile of bullshit.

I hate to break it too you Mr. Sargent but Obama is ONLY doing what he wants now, not what DEMS want. That is NOT representation and it's not favoring a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Where does it say that once Obama secured the nomination, he can go do what ever the hell he wants because that is what he is doing here?

This isn't going to get better, it's going to get worse, so we might all want to take responsibility for our government and tell Obama that WE are the ones in charge here not him, and he is suppose to represent our needs - not his, and IF he doesn't agree to that - than he should vacate the position. Obama doesn't understand or respect our US Constitution or Dem Party any more that Bush does, - Jeebus, and I know that this group doesn't feel blessed that Obama just spoke down to them from his lofty perch in the high heavens, NOPE, they probably thought he had some kind of responsibility to do it.

Imagine that!

FISA is not really my issue, but I have 2 varying thoughts on this.

1. It showed a sign of respect and a willingness to listen to opposing points of views and an understanding that for some this is deciding issue and not waving off their support.

On the other hand,

2. I can't help but think that if this was another more "top down" candidate, there would have been no response at all. I can actually see the some campaigns being more hardnose on it you know "with us or against us" or "who else ya gonna vote for".

I just wish that more people realized the difference in approach and gave Obama some credit in that regard.

It is indeed a deal breaker - screw Obama -
If my rights are going to be violated, if the Constitution doesn't mean squat, does it really matter if McCain or Obama are on top?

I am certain that all that follow politics closely knew we would never find a candidate that we agreed with 100 percent. We can only support the one we feel will do the best for our country and our Constitution. Our most important task right now is to get a Democratic president into office . . . the Republicans MUST GO. Let's accept the fact Obama is not perfect but a breath of fresh air compared to what we have been experiencing.

I will begin by repeating that I plan to vote for Senator Obama despite his restatement of the false choices for his capitulation on the pending FISA legislation. Much of my opposition to the pending FISA legislation is due to the cynically crafted grant of immunity to the telecommunication providers that assisted with the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program, but I am also upset by the targeting procedures that are a primary focus of the pending FISA legislation. These targeting procedures are the demon spawn of the Protect America Act of 2007, and it is worth mentioning that a person does not have to be inside the United States on a continuous basis to be a U.S. citizen, and a person does not have to be inside the United States on a continuous basis to be a legal resident of the United States. It can be extremely difficult to determine the identity of someone who is transmitting or receiving an electronic communication (especially via e-mail), and it can be extremely difficult to determine the location of someone transmitting or receiving an electronic communication. Section 702(c)(4) of Title VII of FISA would be amended by Section 101(a) of Title I of H.R. 6304 to state: "CONSTRUCTION -- Nothing in title I shall be construed to require an application for a court order under such title for an acquisition that is targeted in accordance with this section at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." Because of the loose construction (no pun intended) of this sentence, this provision would enable the government to engage in electronic surveillance of most international communications without a court order and without any determination that there is probable cause for surveillance of the electronic communication of a particular person, even in those situations in which the international communication is sent by and/or received by a U.S. citizen or other legal U.S. resident.. This was done intentionally to satisfy complaints by the Director of National Intelligence about the significant limits of modern technology with respect to identifying targets and the location of targets.

One of the hollow arguments raised by supporters of the Bush Administration is the allegation that critics of the Terrorist Surveillance Program want foreign terrorists to be protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Critics of the Terrorist Surveillance Program are NOT arguing against the surveillance of foreign intelligence targets, and neither warrants nor probable cause is needed to direct surveillance against foreign intelligence sources. In August 2007, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell indicated that an adverse Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) ruling in Spring 2007 led to efforts by the Bush Administration to lobby Congress for the Protect America Act that was passed at the beginning of August 2007 (just before Congress left Washington for its summer recess and in response to fake threats of terrorist attacks that were circulated by the Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress). Also in August 2007, House Minority Leader John Boehner stated that the FISC had issued a ruling prohibiting intelligence agents from intercepting foreign-to-foreign calls passing through the United States. FISA could be amended to allow intelligence agencies to monitor foreign-to-foreign communications that pass through circuits in the U.S., but Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell told the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 25, 2007 that he Bush Administration would not accept this accommodation. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2007, Mr. McConnell stated that he would oppose any language that would amend FISA only to exclude "foreign-to-foreign" communications from the scope of FISA because the intelligence-gathering agencies cannot demonstrate with certainty that those people with whom their targets will communicate would be exclusively outside the United States and because such language would not enable intelligence-gathering agencies to monitor communications of foreign intelligence targets outside the United States who may communicate with a “sleeper” or co-conspirator who is inside the United States. These are specious arguments because FISA, as it existed prior to, and as it exists subsequent to, the Protect America Act of 2007 (which expired February 16, 2008), did not (does not) require intelligence-gathering agencies to predetermine whom their foreign intelligence targets would contact, and also did not (does not) require intelligence-gathering agencies to guarantee that communications from foreign intelligence targets would be exclusively between persons located outside the United States.

At a meeting on March 3, 2008, and in response to a question from David Kris (a former Federal prosecutor), Assistant Attorney General for National Security Kenneth Wainstein said that FISA as it existed before (and as it exists after) the effective life of the Protect America Act of 2007 did not (and does not) apply to foreign-to-foreign communications that are routed through a location in the United States. The primary concern according to Mr. Wainstein is e-mail, because "essentially you don't know where the recipient is going to be" and so intelligence agencies would not know in advance whether the communication is entirely outside the United States. The surveillance powers sought by the President and his subordinates via the Protect America Act of 2007, and via pending FISA legislation, far exceed the authority necessary to circumvent the alleged impediments imposed by FISA relative to foreign intelligence targets. The reason for the obfuscations by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence is that the Bush Administration does not want to admit that it has engaged in massive unfiltered electronic surveillance, without warrants and without probable cause, of all electronic traffic coming into the United States. The Bush Administration wants to continue this massive unfiltered electronic surveillance, without warrants and without probable cause, in a wide variety of circumstances, involving U.S. citizens and other legal U.S. residents, that would require warrants under FISA. The Bush Administration wants Congress to legitimize this massive unfiltered electronic surveillance, without warrants and without probable cause, involving U.S. citizens and other legal residents, and the Bush Administration wants to shield this illegal activity from the public by providing retroactive immunity to the telecommunication providers that assisted with the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

In November 2007, Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, visited Washington D.C. to furnish information to members of Congress, congressional staff members and journalists about his personal knowledge of wiretapping by the National Security Agency (which directed the Terrorist Surveillance Program), including massive unfiltered electronic surveillance of Internet traffic and telephone calls to and from U.S. citizens. The information disclosed by Mr. Klein has been an integral part of a pending lawsuit (Hepting v. AT&T Corp.), yet this information had received little media attention prior to Mr. Klein's trip to Washington. On December 19, 2007, Ryan Singel reported for the WIRED magazine blog "THREAT LEVEL" that information obtained via a request under the Freedom of Information Act by the Electronic Frontier Foundation from the FBI, in an end-of-year report compiled by the FBI's Telecommunications Intercept and Collection Technology Unit, revealed that the FBI's software for recording telephone surveillance of suspected spies and terrorists intercepted 27,728,675 sessions in 2006. The report did not explain the methodology, but such reports indicate that the surveillance was not targeted with much precision.

On February 28, 2008, Babak Pasdar (a computer security consultant) filed a seven-page affadavit with the Government Accountability Project explaining that, while he was working to revamp security for a major telecommunications carrier, he discovered a link referred to as the Quantico Circuit that was passively giving a third-party (the center of the FBI's electronic surveillance operations is in Quantico, VA) "access to the billing system, text messaging, fraud detection, web site, and pretty much all the systems in the data center without apparent restrictions." Kevin Poulson, writing for the WIRED magazine blog "THREAT LEVEL", reported on March 6, 2008 that Mr. Pasdar, now CEO of New York-based Bat Blue told ''THREAT LEVEL", "I wanted to put some access controls around it; they vehemently denied it. And when I wanted to put some logging around it, they denied that." Mr. Pasdar was not permitted to name the carrier, but Mr. Poulson reports that: (1) Mr. Pasdar's affadavit for the Government Accountability Project is nearly identical to an affadavit contained in a lawsuit filed against Verizon Wireless in 2006; (2) Because the data center was a clearing house for all Verizon Wireless calls, the transmission line provided the Quantico recipient direct access to all content and all information concerning the origin and termination of telephone calls placed on the Verizon Wireless network as well as the actual content of calls; (3) The transmission line was unprotected by any firewall and would have enabled the recipient on the Quantico end to have unfettered access to Verizon Wireless customer records, data and information; (4) Any customer databases, records and information could be downloaded from this center.

On January 17, 2007, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales stated in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Terrorist Surveillance Program would not be reauthorized by the President, and that any electronic surveillance that was occurring as part of the Terrorist Surveillance Program would henceforth be conducted subject to the approval of the Foreign Intelli