I report. I decide.

Oh wait I'm doing it wrong...

UPDATE: FISA passed. Obama favored it.

i only agree with no and no but not no and no, ya know?

Word is tomorrow the bill will be decided in favor. This will grant immunity for AT&T, Verizon, and other telecomz, for wiretapping illegally.

Voted checkbox.

Obama initially opposed this, but now that it's passed in the house, he plans to support it. At least, the last time I knew.

Which is really upsetting.

Don't worry. He's only doing what he thinks he needs to do to get elected. He is "refining" many positions. I just like to think of him as the candidate of change.

Yeah, and McCain has never flipped on an issue. Multiple times. On dozens of issues.

If a politician changes his mind on an issue, he becomes labeled as a flip-flopper. If he sticks by the same position for years, he is called stubborn. Heh.

Indeed.

The refining pun would have been better with McCain. You know, blood for oil and all that.

If this article accurately quotes Obama, it seems that he compromised to ensure that phone companies aren't given blanket immunity on wire-tapping charges but still wants to work later to remove the immunity for the provision for individuals that the article mentions.

What does that have to do with him being troubled by BHO's reversal or my post? But since you brought it up, I can't really think of any major policy reversals McCain has had. He's more in the stubborn category.



Pun? Blood for oil? What are you talking about?

Pretty funny, though, how this was all such big news and controversial a few months back and now it seems to just silently be sailing through the democrat controlled congress.

one
two
three

I haven't been keeping score, but I just typed "mccain flip flop" into google and came up with these three items.

Yeah, I was trying to find that first one. Thanks for the other two.

Great post! First, I want to say that I'm not a McCain advocate. I personally respect the man but disagree with him vastly on many issues. Now to respond.

one:

Very partisan article that doesn't really have any major policy reversals which is what I said a couple posts ago. It criticizes him for some minor pro-life opinions supposedly changing but states he has always been pro-life. No major reversal there. It cites his support for making the tax cut permanent (while deceiving about the wealthiest benefitting the most, the tax burden was actually further shifted up the income scale) when he used to oppose them. He always supported tax cuts but only if spending was reduced as well. An admirable position. Now that the tax cuts are in effect there would be no reason for him to oppose them especially if he is elected president and has greater ability to reduce spending. Not much else there as far as major policy issues, maybe the ethanol thing but with the terrible fuel situation now days an evolving position is to be expected.

two:

Kind of silly to criticize a change in opinion on oil exploration 8 years later and with the current situation. Now only if he would flip flop on drilling in ANWAR...

three:

Other than the word flip-flop in the title I don't see one. He his depressingly adamantly against torture but I don't see how that would require him to vote in support of every bill that is such especially when there is so much garbage in every bill that doesn't even have anything to do with the core purpose of the bill. Still, I think if a senator has strong opinons on certain issues, they should author and put their name on a bill. Put their freaking money where there mouth is. It is far too easy to simply oppose everything.

Now, I think that people can obviously find contradictions in a long record such as McCain's but I think his core values have remained very consistent. The problem many liberals seem to have with BHO is how much many of his positions seem to have changed just since the primary. I would tell them not to worry. He is just doing what he needs to do to get elected. After that he will remain fairly liberal until he starts to see a need to work towards reelection.

Ok seriously. People who ***** about this kind of crap are really nonsensical.

Whos got anything to hide? You think the government really cares about your phonesex with your girlfriend?

No.

Half the time they don't even listen to anything you've got to say on the phone to begin with. And you don't think they'll go ahead and do this anyway weither the masses approve or not? Seriously. Its really annoying when people piss and moan about this stuff when really its just saving YOUR *** in the end.

Its not "conservative", "liberal", or anything else, really its just common sense.


-end rant-
-flamesuit on-

It's the concern of another Joseph McCarthy having powers like these, Onimusha. It'd be nice if everyone could be trusted to use these governmental powers correctly, but we've got a history of power abusers (Nixon, McCarthy, and I'm certain that there are less renowned examples as well) that make that an improbable reality.

If a warrant(or an equivilant that meets similar specifications) is obtained before or immediately after the surveillance, I'm fine with it. Otherwise, yeah, I see it as wrong.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16124.html

They have a new list of McCain's flip flops... sure not of them are too major but there's a LOT of them.

Immigration reform would be a good example. McCain now claims he won't even vote for the bill that he authored.
The overturning of Roe vs. Wade is a minor part of the abortion debate?

[QUOTE=John Mcain, May 2001, Senate floor]I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.[/quote]McCain's argument on the Senate floor when he was one of two Republicans to vote against the tax cuts didn't really have anything to do with spending. Now in 2008, he claims it had to do with spending.


As for FISA and the original post... yeah, I'm pretty disappointed in Congress and Obama. The Congressional Republicans are preparing for a possible thrashing in November, Bush's unpopularity is at a record high (and continuing to climb), and the Democrats are acting as if they are in the minority. They call it a 'compromise,' but compromise doesn't mean giving the other side everything they asked for.

Noted. But I am under the impression that if the government wants it, they'll get it. They don't need any law or legislature to tell them differently. I honestly don't trust the government for anything except my tax refund, but I do know that its a hell of alot better then most other countries governments. Therefore I do what I do and don't complain too much.

I'm not a drug/arms dealer, part of a terrorist faction, capo in a crime family, or a mass murderer, so what do I care about my phone being tapped?


Like I said initially. If you've got nothing to hide, whats the big fuss?

Would you rather they potentially not find a "terrorist" because of a possible missed phonecall due to red tape, and its your parents/spouses/children who die all because it was deemed "unconstitional" just so a select few could sleep better at night? I certainly would not. Just my standpoint anyway.

I really want to refrain from turning this into a defense of McCain because I'm not a big fan of his. Still, I feel the need to respond.



I thought he was fairly clear in his acceptance of the opposition most voters seemed to have to his bill. I believe his current position is that he would not reintroduce the amnesty aspect until after the security portion of the issue is properly addressed.



It is because the legislative and executive branches have nothing to do with whether or not the judicial branch overturns its own ruling. Even if you are a pro-abortion type there are very valid reasons for not agreeing with the supreme court ruling. The point still is that he has been consistent in his anti-abortion position.



I would have to look into what arguments he may have made on the floor but his rhetoric for at least the last year has been what I stated.

If telecoms have nothing to hide, why do they need immunity? If they didn't do anything wrong, why not let them have their day in court?

Ah..the old 'it doesn't affect me, so why should I care' mentality.

The Constitution is slowly eroding..2nd, 4th..what's next..

I'm not referring to the defense of any corporation. I am talking about american citizens complaining about how the monitering of their phonelines effects them in some strange way, not telecoms.

Oni, when you don't need a warrant to wiretap someone you don't have to declare it ever, there are no checks or balances upon its use. Members of the forces could even get away with doing it for personal reasons. It was used in East Germany to spy on people to search for anti-government sentiments.

And closer to home for me: my father's family phone was tapped throughout his childhood in South Africa. When you picked up the phone you'd here the clicking as the tape machine clicked in. All because of my grandfather's affiliation and activities with a group called the Springbok Legion. When my father reached 17 and had to do national service he opted for officer training and got a particularly strong beasting which he's pretty convinced was due to his father being a suspected "enemy of state". He was even stabbed in the back by one of his instructors with a bayonet during a roadblock exercise and had to make excuses with the doctors as to how he'd fallen back onto his knife. It was only after that that they concluded his assessment and he became an officer.

This is the kind of horrible crap that comes with a government that spies on its own citizens. If you do have another McCarthy type, the scapegoats of the day will also be turned down from jobs, subject to increased harassment, have their freedoms limited or worse.

I could try to explain, but this article does it so well already:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/17/surveillance.database?gusrc=rss&feed=technology


Eg:


And:

That really isn't relevant to his post, though.

Except it really is. His post was arguing that the less red tape there is, the more we can tap/monitor, and thus the more likely we are to catch terrorists, when exactly the opposite seems to be true. I don't see how that isn't relevant.

I know what you are referring to. I'm applying your argument to the current legislation and its granting of immunity to the telecoms that broke the law. If they are innocent, why not let them have their day in court? Why grant a pardon before we know all the facts?

Seems to me that your link is an argument against a vast amount of intelligence information. The subject is more about the ability to selectively monitor suspect communications. There is a big difference between data mining and targeted intelligence.

I just don't understand the obsession some people have with being able to punish telecoms for cooperating with the government in good faith.

**** Obama.

.

Perhaps not you, but there could be other people who have legitimate interest in hiding what they're doing.
What about journalists? They are sure to get less information if their informants are too scared to contact them.
Or politicians, especially members of the opposition. They certainly don't want to have their phones wiretapped.

And you are in trouble if you are falsely accused, either malicously or because of stupidity. Or if it happens to a friend. See Andrej Holm and his girlfriend

This is America. Wiretapping opposing political leaders is illegal. We're talking about foreign intelligence. So, yes, if any political leader is contacting suspected terrorists overseas there could be validity in wiretapping the conversation, which the FISA court could determine. Opposing amnesty to telecoms does nothing to aid Germans in Germany.

I don't think telecoms necessarily need to be punished for breaking the law, but I don't think immunity should be granted before we know they extent of the illegal program. It doesn't give much incentive for telecoms to follow the law if Congress is just going to swoop in and save them from the consequences of their actions.

I mean the specific point of FISA when it was passed in the 70s was to prevent telecoms from participating in illegal surveillance by the government. It's not like the law was obscure or something. The law passed after it was revealed that Western Union was passing along copies of telegraphs to the government. The purpose of the law was to establish an independent duty for telecoms to reject illegal "orders" from the government.

This isn't a monarchy. George Bush isn't a king. He can't order a private citizen or company to break the law. He is the Commander-in-Chief of the military, yet even soldiers are prohibited from obeying unlawful orders.

Guys you're trying to argue with onimushulala and wookie...

FISA passed. Obama favored it.

That's why I said "in good faith". You have federal agents ordering telecoms to perform certain wiretaps under FISA and/or FISA court warrants. Suing or prosecuting them for cooperation would be like suing your mother because she let cops claiming to have a warrant search your belongings.