Turley on Countdown: " I am completely astonished by Sen. Obama's stance on FISA"

Turley says the Dems INSULT us by calling it a compromise that is nothing but a CAVE-IN. He likened it to when a person gets attacked in broad daylight, but no one comes to their defense. Adds, we will lose something very imporanat tomorrow - a part of the 4th Amendment.

This is a shameful time in our history.

out of fear

I was being too general.

e-mail petitions & phone calls apparently are meaningless given the MILLIONS who have expressed their opposition.

tough decisions for everyone to make...

Posted in the wrong spot.

when Delay's terrorists in Palm Beach were not machine-gunned or hauled off to prison when they stormed the recount, the game was over, or, in your words, we went down the road to fascism. We'll never get the country back now without WW III.

Has a population of about 6 nearby!
The Town has only 1,200! State Capital & Biggest town are 3 hours drive away.....
Washington DC is 700 miles away!
My 25 year old car needs some critical repairs before I can use it!
That's why I am not in the street!
( just read in the local paper this AM our county, Wash. CO Maine, has 16.1 unemployment! And the life expectancy for WOman is dropping!)

We can blame him for preventing election reform with his disability lobby connection, the leadreship of which is in league with the vendors.

This is what we're up against, and empowering Obama, and with electing a more responsive Congress is paramount.

I add that I've heard pro FISA comments from people who are not in the pocket, or in politics. That having a court is better than not.

Hoyer is the second highest recipient of telecommunications bounty. Of course he made deals and lined his pocket with him. Given his prior record, the instant he became majority leader it was clear that House for Sale would continue much as it had under the Republics. The Constitution? As the Monkey King said, "it's just a g/d piece of paper". QED, the Pelosi House agrees.

Throughout history, one truth has amply been demonstrated time and time over: once a right has been rescinded or given away, it is never returned without a bloody fight. I do think that the only thing slowing down the onslaught of an overt, all-at-once overthrow of the Constitution is the fact that we still have an armed populace. At the rate at which the integuments of the Bill of Rights are falling, it won't be long until that, too, will be a thing of the past. I do often wonder, however, how long the Second Amendment shell-game is going to last. What good is a handgun against the promise that they'll nuke a city a day until the rest of us succumb?

As much as I hate to sound like a pessimest, given the demonstrations of the last 7 years, I absolutely would not put it past BushCo and I would not put it past certain DINOs to cheer them on.

Well, at least this dem in Houston agrees. Turley is a well-respected constitutional lawyer and he has a problem with it. That should make everyone on this board nervous.

we're on our own.

"Astonished by Sen. Obama's stance on FISA"

This was a VERY important test for Obama, and I am extremely disappointed in his complete lack of leadership on this crucial issue.

as a issue. It's not about left and right - it's about right an WRONG! The Constitution! Show us some CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!

Words are meaningless unless they are backed up by action. Obama has made a pretty hard case for "change" - now is the time to implement it, if he is truly committed to it. He can take a stand. He can back up his words with actions. Or not.

They're hiding something.

She said that Obama was forced to accept the deal because it gets the FISA Court back to issuing warrants because certain deadlines in the PAA are due to expire this summer.

And it only grants immunity to civil lawsuits, not CRIMINAL charges, so no biggie.

Does anyone else think it's no big deal?

They were collected without protection. Let them expire.

If PAA expires, then it GOES BACK to the original FISA statutes.

And as bad as they were in the first place, the FISA statutes at least provided full judicial oversight, however minimum. They protected 4th Amendment rights from total oblivion.

Telecoms has always had court immunity, for years, so retroactive immunity not an issue. Rules of the court an improvement and necessary.

I wish the left would begin understanding issues fully and politically before causing one commotion after another.

"Court has always had immunity" - :wtf: COURTS RULE on crimes, they aren't the accused here.

"Rules of the court an improvement and necessary." - How is this bill an improvement on the original FISA Act? Be specific.

"I wish the left would begin understanding issues fully and politically before causing one commotion after another." - 'Scuse me? Are you in the wrong place here?

Really tired of the fixation on this, if a minor step forward and leadership made this choice. He's not president yet.

People other than Smith and not in government-that guy in NYT today and a former Nixon enemy-had a different take.

like Congress is going to take that little burden off your shoulders. *presto* Amendment gone.

I'm more substantial than a dearie'

Go home, pet the dog, kiss the spouse and hope for the best? How's that working out for you?

America wasn't built on "compromises", especially when that "compromise" is complete capitulation to the opponent.

Sigh.

Bake

and it is a VERY big deal and sets a very bad precedent. In the words of Senator Dodd, "Where the rule of law ends the rule of tyranny begins," and he was quoting Margarat Thatcher of all people.

It's required daily reading for me.

a constitutional scholar before I would a talk show host.

But I DON'T always respect her analysis.

And in this case, she's dead wrong.

FISA provides everything we need. PAA can expire and have no negative effect whatsoever.

We are being bullshitted on a megascale by our so-called Democratic representatives and Senators.

What's worse is that they're trying to tell us it holds Bush to a higher standard, when, in fact, it gives him more freedom for warrantless searches with NO OVERSIGHT whatsoever.


This is beyond belief. As someone said earlier, this would have been a home run for Obama. He could have knocked McAnus' anus out of the race with this one. But he caved.

Change..!!?? My ASS!! This is the same old shit.

I like the take to the streets meme.

Then let's say Hillary Clinton was now the presumptive nominee and that she flipflopped on FISA as Obama has.

Rhodes would eviscerate her.

during a political campaign season.

of betraying the constitution and the oathes they swore to defend it in order to hand a victory to a profoundly unpopular pResident and his far right supporters?

From every angle I can see (oher than blackmail or the promise of corrupt money) this move has ZERO politcal benefit to either Obama or the Democratic party.

Congress is already at SINGLE DIGIT approval ratings for their cowardice and complicity over the last year- yet apparently, that's not low enough for this bunch.

over this stance.

ALL I WANT IS RULE OF LAW AND TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION! :mad:

I knew Obama was going to disappoint us but I had no idea he'd move this fast.

All the Bush crimes will become established precedent and the example is set that future US administrations may regard obeying the Constitution as optional.

The constitution specifically forbids retroactive legislation (Article 1, Section 9). This bill is yet another violation of the constitution.

our Congress. Jonathan Turley is a Constitutional scholar and law professor and he thinks that the FISA bill is giving away a chunk of the Fourth Amendment. We never get anything back. How can we expect to this time with the majority of dems and our own presidential candidate voting for it? If this bill is challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, look who we have there to consider its legitimacy. I am disgusted with the dems right NOW.

as far as i'm concerned, KO should retire and have Rachel permanently replace him.

she F*CKING ROCKS, and i think she's more brilliant, talented, brave, and professional, any way. (and more progressive, too. imo.)

I got a little burnt out on Keith during the primaries, but Rachel is always a breath of fresh air.

I'm trying to remember the constitutional arguments he made in favor of impeachment at the time.

:thumbsup:

Very important point.

Bill Clinton and the Blanche DeBois Defense
Published 1, August 22, 2007
Published March 18, 2002

Like Blanche DuBois in A Streetcar Named Desire, former President William Jefferson Clinton is someone that has “always depended on the kindness of strangers.” This certainly seems to be the case with Independent Counsel Robert Ray who, back in January 2001, cut Clinton a deal to avoid criminal charges in the Lewinsky matter. Now, with the release of his final report, it turns out that career prosecutors in the Ray’s office concluded that Clinton could not only be charged on the evidence but could have been convicted on the basis of that evidence. What is most troubling is that the report seems to confirm Clinton’s belief that his position, and not the evidence, would dictate the outcome of any criminal investigation.

For most every felon, there is a certain calculus of risk. With the exception of crimes of passion or insanity, most criminals balance the likelihood of detection and the severity of punishment in any criminal act. For Clinton, this basic formula was different from the outset. Clinton knew that it was not simply the likelihood of detection but the likelihood of prosecution that was most relevant in any criminal investigation. From the outset, Clinton appeared too popular to impeach or to indict. Given the evidence in Ray’s report, Clinton appears entirely in that calculation.

The basis of criminal charges against Clinton is widely known. There is no question that Clinton lied under oath a fact that he ultimately admitted to in his deal with Ray. Even before this admission, however, the record was abundantly clear. Judge Susan Webber Wright in the Paula Jones case found Clinton in contempt on the basis that he intentionally lied under oath and obstructed a federal case. The Arkansas Supreme Court stripped Clinton of his license based on this misconduct.

It hardly took Oliver Wendell Holmes to see the basis for such decisions. Clinton lied repeatedly under oath about never being alone with Lewinsky; he lied when he stated that he did not have a sexual affair or relations with Lewinsky; and he lied when swore that her affidavit denying any sexual relationship was true. He then repeated false testimony before a federal grand jury and later lied about his efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses like Betty Curry.

-snip

http://jonathanturley.org/2007/08/22/bill-clinton-and-the-blanche-debois-defense/

NOTE: all though this doesn't appear to equal the crimes of the current administration, it is no less a serious offense.

"less a serious offense." The best explanation of the difference between lying under oath in a manner that should result in a charge of perjury, versus what most courts tend to overlook, is found in Vincent Bugliosi's "The Betrayal of America." It has to do with the motive for lying: if a person lies to cover up a crime, or to avoid legal responsibilities in civil court, it should result in perjury. When a person lies about something that isn't criminal, and has no actual bearing on a civil case, Bugliosi notes he is only aware of one other time in US history (besides Clinton) when it resulted in a perjury charge.

I am not saying that I think Bill Clinton is an upstanding fellow in his personal life. But his "crime" was to engage in behavior that thousands of common citizens do, and lie about it the same way thousands of people lie about it. Bush and Cheney, on the other hand, have told lies that have led to the death of thousands of common citizens. I think that this is far more serious.

Would he be a good supreme court justice? I'm not sure of his politics but every time I hear him he seems to know his Constitution.

Back to ridiculing Obama! :eyes:

this is very concerning.

;(

indeed SHAMEFUL!!!!

:eyes:

and have RJK as your avatar - it's a fucking DISGRACE :thumsdown:

and you have bashed Obama and his DU supporters ad nauseum so forgive me if i can't take you seriously...

My tooth aches, but I'm starving.

Support Obama and you can fix your tooth.

but that doesn't mean that peoples concerns can be swept under the rug. I have the feeling that if a loud enough noise is made, Obama will hear it.

will not be so concerning. lets just get him elected.

He made noises during the campaign that he would follow the Reagan model, then he backs down on this Fisa promise, now he 'promises' never to use his children for campaign purposes. Very troubling It just looks to me that he is going to cave in to big money. There is no guarantee that he will choose the liberal or moderate people for Supreme Court either. The problem is he is a shoo-in to the WH and may turn out to be another stooge for big corporations..

have "Caved IN". I'm not surprised about Obama voting for it, he's seriously confused about what he wants.

I can't find the words to state how ugly this is. Our once vaunted constitution has been reduced to toilet paper for bushits underside. Looks like institutional greed just might win out over personal freedom. Fuck.