The Obamaniacs should be used to being treated this way, at least till Jan 2009. Obama will do what it takes to be elected, including throwing the leftosphere under the bus if necessary.

The rightosphere shouldn’t take a solace in this though. Obama, rated the most liberal senator, should be back in normal form once sworn in as President.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Not very adult of you but I sympathize with the thought behind it.

ed.

Republicans are such tough talkers when it comes to so called security. Follow the money and look at the votes man. It’s not too hard to figure out just how cheap a vote really is.

Security is such a political farce. I’ll take my right to privacy any day over so called security. Again, I’ve read the entire bill, have you?

The real problem exists in the PATRIOT Act. Bush stripped our Fourth Amendment rights with that heinous piece of legislation.

Bush stripped many of our civil liberties because we let him. Bush should be impeached for allowing 9/11 to happen, then he used it as a scare tactic to strip many of our civil liberties.

Bah. Hoping that Obama does the right thing is as ridiculous as hoping GWB won’t lie to us. There should be no HOPE. There should be iron clad law and rules to restrict the president from even getting tempted to screw the people.

Let’s get one thing straight here. This isn’t about terror. This is about unchecked power. Terror is just the boogyman of the hour.

Oh Puleeeez. “Unchecked power?” What a fucking drama queen. There is so much oversight on that program it’s pitiful - Justice, Congress, the NSA lawyers - Jesus loving christ how much more “checks” do you want?

The trouble is for idiots like you, it’s all about being a hero and saving the country from the evil of your political opponents. You are mentally ill and need either a pacifier or a rubber room.

ed.

- Any attempt to debate this issue is unpatriotic and endangers America.

- Any attempt to change parts of the surveillance program is unpatriotic and endangers America.

- Any attempt to find out the details of the program is unpatriotic and endangers America.

When you mention debate, I assume you’re talking about the kind of debate where we weigh the details of the program and make changes if necessary. You may think that this type of debate happen when all we know about the program are leaked details and the speculation of experts, but I think that this is totally naive.

One of the frustrations of those of us on the left is the complete lack of curiosity of those on the right. Although I disagree with a lot in your article, I was happy to see this:

I just don’t see them getting so all-fired upset at a President Obama if he were to continue these surveillance programs or even expand them.

Yes! This is the conversation we should be having. Righties should be skeptical about the use of this program by a Democratic president. I think our government should be using high-tech methods of rooting out terrorism, but the details of this program should not be dependent on who is in the White House at the time. All Americans should be worried about a program that gives the government too much opportunity to invade the privacy of law-abiding citizens.

I agree attempts to close off debate on the right by raising patriotism or national security has been there. But I am pretty sure it is not as widespread as the vast majority on the left screaming taht the program is illegal.

I hope Obama uses the program in whatever way is legal and cognizant of individual rights. And you won’t hear the right complaining about it. If you do, you have every right to yell hypocrisy.

ed.

My takes on this whole sorry FISA update debate are:
(A) We need to develop a privacy culture and privacy legislation in this country, or by exponential technological curve default, it will slide into a ubiquitous surveillance society/state. If we collectively decide we want to trade all of our privacy for something else (e.g. security, very precise targeting of marketing, etc), fine, but let’s not slide into it over the next 25 years as the technology makes it more and more possible and inexpensive.
(B) The retroactive immunity for telecoms looks and smells like (”has the appearance of”) a GWBush administration wrongdoing protection act. Supporters of immunity can dress it up all they want as e.g. preventing activists from forcing discovery/testimony that exposes details of secret methods and programs, but it still has the appearance of protecting the administration from prosecution and/or embarrassment. I’d bet at 80 percent odds that the GWBush administration ordered (or otherwise made to happen) some minor (at least) improper and possibly illegal surveillance of political opponents, but there is no point betting now.

Boy, that’s a great question. Luckily we’ll never have to know the answer after this passes.

*”Once again, the nuance of the issue escapes the potato heads on the left who are licking their chops at the prospect of massive class action lawsuits against some major corporations that could easily bankrupt them as the legal fees alone could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.”*

This makes my heart ache for major corporations. If they violate the law, and my civil rights, then I should have the right to sue them into oblivion. What you seem to be missing is that this is America. A new and bigger major corporation will spring up to take it’s place, and it will employ even MORE hardworking Americans.

I find it hard to believe that you have even read this bill Rick. And yes, I have. Isn’t it just like a wuss liberal to want to conserve our inalienable rights and keep the federal government from amassing too much power? They’re so pathetic and predictable.

Many with a lot more legal acumen than you or I say differently - that the Telecoms did not violate the law or our privacy. And that’s my point in writing this piece.

ed.

Too little too late. Where were they when FDR was rounding up Japanese Americans and Clinton’s ATF was shooting incendiary rounds into a house filled with children and pregnant women?