Telecom Amnesty Foes On the Move

ya really notes a blog posting up at Wired reporting that foes of the Telecom Amnesty Bill have mounted a campaign on Barack Obama's own website. Though the group was created only days ago, on June 25, it has grown to be the fifth largest among 7,000 such groups, just short of Women for Obama. Although it is widely known that Obama changed his stance from opposing telecom immunity to supporting it, many have not given up hope of getting him to switch once again. Meanwhile, left-leaning bloggers and libertarian activists have joined forces to raise $325,000 in the fight against the legislation. "Their Blue America PAC is already targeting House Democrats who voted for the bill, including placing a full-page ad in the Washington Post [an image appears in the Wired story] slamming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who claimed credit for creating the so-called compromise bill. The coalition plans to follow-up with a Ron Paul-style money bomb, which will be used to target key Senators..."

From what I can tell

it's now the fourth largest.

If you believe in this, go join the group. It takes about thirty seconds to sign up, and there's only 2000 more people needed to make it the third largest. I've seen more comments than that on many political posts, so I have little doubt that we can, in theory, rustle up that many people.

Widely Known

It is widely known that slashdot summaries are completely inaccurate. As Slashdot [slashdot.org] previously reported, Obama has not switched his position to be in favor of telecom amnesty. He has said he will try to have that provision stripped from the compromise bill. Now don't get me wrong, he has taken a weak position and plans to vote for the (bad) bill even if they aren't able to have the provision removed, but that doesn't make the summary any less bullshit.

Re:Widely Known

Although it is widely known that Obama changed his stance from opposing telecom immunity to supporting it, many have not given up hope of getting him to switch once again.

Now don't get me wrong, he has taken a weak position and plans to vote for the (bad) bill even if they aren't able to have the provision removed

Before he had said he was absolutely against retroactive telecom immunity. Now he says he will vote for the bill even if it has the immunity in it. It is that simple. He flip-flopped and is exactly what the summary says. Did I miss something?

He is repeating inflated security concerns

It looks as if he has accepted the line peddled by those who have an interest in exaggerating the security issues:

Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike

Sad, I thought that he was brighter than that.

Re:He is repeating inflated security concerns

Or, unlike you, he's actually seen security briefings detaling the threats we face. Let's not boil this down to "those who agree with you" and "stupid people".

AT&T's take

AT&T took down their ad, but it was pretty funny in a sick sort of way. If you didn't catch their new ad, it was on their bill-pay site last week. I kept a little archive of it here [readingfordummies.com]. Enjoy.

Reid

More information about the myBO campaign

There's a lot more information about the Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right [barackobama.com] my.barackobama.com campaign on the Get FISA right [wetpaint.com] wiki. Check it out, and please join the group! Mike Stark's Will Obama feel the sting of social networking? [openleft.com] on OpenLeft gives some great context on the campaign. And there's a Facebook group too [facebook.com]. Are we web 2.0 or what?

Re:Barack Obama

It was bound to happen. Reading the "walks-on-water" posts by supporters on various websites has been a laugh. Who really believes in election-year promises anyway? The democrats walked away from their traditional base of labor and minorities during the Clinton administration, but the younger voters don't remember that. Both parties are now firmly tucked into their respective corporate pockets and neither one represents the interests of the average voter. Oil and finance on one side, media and entertainment on the other, both marching in lockstep toward corporate-controlled fascism.

The only thing Obama (or anyone else) could do to impress me is tell the far left/right to f*ck off, but since they're the ones controlling their respective parties, it ain't gonna happen. The other parties are non-entities locked into unrealistic idealism. Until we get a viable 3rd party that actually considers the constitution a relevant document and the needs of the individual voters over special interest groups, it's all downhill from here.

In the meantime, grab the popcorn and keep filling out your bullshit bingo cards. Actually, can anyone suggest rules for a fascism bingo game? That would be fun. Papers please!

Re:Barack Obama

Both parties are now firmly tucked into their respective corporate pockets and neither one represents the interests of the average voter...

The other parties are non-entities locked into unrealistic idealism. Until we get a viable 3rd party that actually considers the constitution a relevant document and the needs of the individual voters over special interest groups, it's all downhill from here.

Your post illustrates perfectly why nothing will ever change. You understand that the two major parties are hopeless, but this healthy cynicism doesn't translate into any form of action whatsoever (even simply pulling the lever for another party).

You criticize third-parties for being "too idealistic"... but then describe your desired alternative in terms of idealism! So what does "viable" really mean, then? The Libertarian Party over the past 10 years has streamlined its platform to cut out the extreme elements, and has built to the point of this year having former a U.S. congressman and senator debating for its Presidential nomination. They'll have ballot access in 49 if not all 50 states.

If that's not "viable", then I suppose your definition of "viable" is really, "They must be one vote away from winning, so that I can jump on the bandwagon at the last second and take credit for it all along". Even that might be too generous. It's more likely that "viable" means, "They've already won, and now I'm going to focus on criticizing why they suck now."

It's the same mentality as a pirate saying that they would of course pay for all their video games, if only publishers would completely do away with all copy protections. That's a disingenuous argument, because you: (1) know that they won't, and (2) wouldn't really pay for all your games even if they did. You likewise set the bar for supporting a third-party at some level unlikely to be met, and would probably just criticize any third-party just like the big two if they ever did meet it.

Re:Barack Obama

It's all very easy, when the time to vote comes around you just consider the candidates, all of them, and vote for who you would actually like to run the country.
Forget this "lesser of 2 evils" crap and vote for someone who you like.
The goal isn't to vote for who you think will win, you don't get points for picking the right one.
Yes the guy you voted for probably won't get in but he might get say 5%.
and next election people saw that he got a noticeable percentage and some of the sheep who think voting for someone who isn't going to win is somehow a waste might throw in their votes as well.
Then the next perhaps someone who you'd actually like to see in charge might get 10%, the next election even more.

If you vote for someone you don't really want to see in charge then you're screwing up the system.

Obama said up-front exactly what 'change' is

...if you weren't reading his books or listening to his speeches (as opposed to the sound bites), I suppose you could miss it. The "new kind of politics" he discusses isn't a change in what he as a Democrat supports; the change is in how he goes about supporting it.

If you've been paying attention to American politics lately, you'll notice that you've got the Left and the Right, and they pretty much hate each other. The Left paints the Right as being a bunch of religious war-mongering nutjobs who hate people having freedoms their religion proscribes, and the Right paints the Left as being a bunch of new-age peacenick nutjobs with no regard for personal accountability who hate their religion.

The 'change' Obama speaks of isn't in terms of what he votes for, but how he gets support for it. No more using religion as a wedge -- or trying to avoid it altogether. No more using fear to try to drive votes ("but the terrrorists will get you!"). Read A Call To Renewal [barackobama.com], and appreciate how its message different from the way Democratic politicians have behaved in the past. Obama is promising a presidency which is serious about the "uniter, not a divider" thing, even while still effectively backing the Democrats' agenda -- by coaching that agenda in terms that speak to more than just the Democratic base. For someone young enough to have never seen American politics that aren't divisive, that's genuine change.

The 'hope' Obama speaks of is getting past all this petty divisiveness and reversing the actions which have destroyed our reputation in the world. Except for the getting-past-the-divisiveness part, that's something all Democrats want to do. This is neither unrealistic or poorly defined.

So there you are -- real promises and expectations, described by 'hope' this and 'change' that.

Re:This guy has a point.

Thanks to this man I will never believe again, and I will vote republican across the board, even as a staunch progressive libertarian, until the democrats wake from their sleep.

A saner course of action would be to vote for a small party, or express your disgust by not voting at all. Don't be part of the problem by keeping the duofascists in power.

Re:This guy has a point.

To put it in a historical analogy (which is bound to be a huge success), you're planning to defeat the evil Cubans by supporting the Soviet Union? Do you honestly think the republicans are the democrats' biggest enemy? They are the closest allies! The two major parties are closer to each other than to any other entity. As I said, don't be part of the problem.

Re:This guy has a point.

A saner course of action would be to vote for a small party, or express your disgust by not voting at all. Don't be part of the problem by keeping the duofascists in power.

actually, that's not the saner thing. That doesn't guarantee their defeat in the same way voting for their strongest opponent does.

Or, here's a crazy thought, instead of getting pissed enough over this to want the other guy to win out of spite, perhaps historical voting records regarding civil liberties for Obama [aclu.org] and McCain [aclu.org] would be useful. I'm very upset with Obama over this (Unity is all well and good, but not at the expense of the rule of law), but in no way is McCain a better choice where civil liberties are concerned.

Yes, that's the ACLU, and lots of people strongly disagree with them for various reasons. Just take their spin into account and make your own decision.

Re:This guy has a point.

Thanks to this man I will never believe again, and I will vote republican across the board, even as a staunch progressive libertarian, until the democrats wake from their sleep.

And yet, looking through your previous postings, it is obvious that you ARE a republican, not a libertarian. Nice move. You are worthy of working with W or Rove.

Re:This guy has a point.

If he's going to be nothing more than a sock puppet for crypto-fascist republicans and their propaganda ministers at fox news, we are screwed either way this election.

When did begrudgingly accepting a compromise mean "being a sock puppet"? I swear, you people have this out of proportion.

The immunity offered by this bill is retroactive only; it does not extend into the future. People who say Obama is pro-warrantless-wiretapping don't know WTF they're talking about; he's supporting a bill which will make it illegal in the future, but the only way to get that bill passed for the future (with a President who's sworn to veto anything w/o the provision and a Republican party with enough votes to prevent that veto from being overridden) is to forgive what happened in the past.

Frankly, with all the rancor on both sides, this country needs a little forgiveness if we're going to heal some of the hatred between the Right and Left.

Re:This guy has a point.

Fuck forgiveness.

I'm a lot more inclined to put some heads on some pikes as a warning to future generations. That'll work much better than "passing a law" as to "make it illegal in the future"... guess what, it's illegal NOW. Why do you think they're asking for immunity?

The whole problem is that the current administration has run rough-shot over the laws by violating them and then thumbing their noses at us and show us how little teeth the current batch of laws has over them. And your solution is to pass a law? Screw that. I'm all in favor of taking a tier 1 telcom company and burning it to the ground so maybe next time they'll actually protect the citizens rights instead of kowtowing to a schmuck president. After that, THEN pass a law and poeple will actually take notice.

They had a duty to us, the citizens, and they screwed us. Fuck 'em. And unfortunately, they're just a poor substitute for the REAL criminals.

d

Re:This guy has a point.

Exactly right. AT&T deserves to be shutdown completely and made an example of. You know, kinda how this whole site cries for the same thing to happen to Microsoft BECAUSE THEY PUT A BROWSER IN THEIR OS. The vagaries of scale on this site are just unbelievable sometimes. "Bundle a browser...lock 'em up and throw away the key! Illegally wiretap American citizens? Eh, they learned their lesson, then won't do it again..."

What's most sickening is how so many people are SCREAMING to have this bill blocked, yet the politicians are actively voting against the wishes of their constituency. They're not even pretending to care anymore.

Re:This guy has a point.

Right. 2 of the criminal corporations that were treated the way you say are the asbestos industry and the tobacco industry.

Workers were exposed to asbestos for decades, while asbestos companies like Johns-Mansville knew that it was causing lung cancer, according to medical reports in their files that came out after they were sued, but they didn't warn those workers. When it all came out, they were hit with millions of dollars in damages, and went bankrupt. You don't see much asbestos around any more.

The tobacco industry is unfortunately so wealthy and politically powerful that they're almost (but not quite) untouchable. They got hit with millions of dollars in damages. The public health people who took them on were pretty smart, and they got money to pay for anti-tobacco education, publicity campaigns, etc. In a big court case, huge amounts of documents get subpoenaed, but the defendants insist on making them confidential as one of the conditions for settling (see the IBM antitrust case). This time, the public health people insisted on making the documents public, and put them in a great database, which revealed their devious methods, and exposed the people we trusted who betrayed us (search Google for "tobacco documents").

Unfortunately, the corporate executives didn't go to jail, even though they killed more people (400,000/year from cigarettes) than Osama bin Laden ever will.

Given the sentiments you expressed, you would probably enjoy reading Ted Rall http://www.gocomics.com/rallcom/ [gocomics.com], although you probably do already. He was warning us from the very first about Obama.

Re:This guy has a point.

People who say Obama is pro-warrantless-wiretapping don't know WTF they're talking about; he's supporting a bill which will make it illegal in the future, but the only way to get that bill passed for the future..

It is illegal now. Why not leave it that way?
Are you so naive to think that electoral calculations did not play a part in Obama's stance?

Jefferson wept

the only way to get that bill passed for the future (with a President who's sworn to veto anything w/o the provision and a Republican party with enough votes to prevent that veto from being overridden) is to forgive what happened in the past.

Frankly, with all the rancor on both sides, this country needs a little forgiveness

So the message is: Your masters can get away with anything.

No wonder Cheney can hunt the most dangerous game with impunity, he knows damn well that even if he shoots people in the face, there's nothing the People will do about it. That would mean the "left" would "won"! Can't have that!

Slaves to their "sides", sheeps, argh!

Re:This guy has a point.

The immunity offered by this bill is retroactive only; it does not extend into the future. People who say Obama is pro-warrantless-wiretapping don't know WTF they're talking about; he's supporting a bill which will make it illegal in the future, but the only way to get that bill passed for the future (with a President who's sworn to veto anything w/o the provision and a Republican party with enough votes to prevent that veto from being overridden) is to forgive what happened in the past.

Why does congress need to pass any bill with an immunity provision? Wait for the next president, and then pass the law. It is only six months away (Thank God!) Whoever it is, the next president will be an improvement over W. Deal with any other FISA issues that may need to be handled (although IMHO FISA is fine as is, if anything, the standards for getting a wiretap need to be tightened, but I'm not holding out hope for that in the current climate of fear.)

Another important issue is that someone needs to be held accountable for the illegal wiretapping. It is it not the telcos, then it should be the NSA and DOJ. Make the agency directors who pressured the telcos (and possibly the White House officials who ordered them to do so criminally responsible for abuse of power and for creating illegal wiretaps. Then and only then can the telcos be let off the hook.

In other words, someone need to be held accountable.

Re:Logo for the summary is misleading.

As a person who grew up in a democratic household...

You got to vote for who would be mom and dad?

Re:Missing the Point

Threatening the telecoms with prosecution will encourage them to cooperate with any future investigations into warrantless wiretapping. If they were coerced, I have no problem with granting them immunity based upon their providing testimony in court to that effect.

If, as the Bush administration claims, there was no violation of the law, then no immunity is needed. If they were forced to hand over data, then they aren't guilty and no immunity is needed in this case as well.

Re:About time

you may have noticed that every House member from Illinois voted against Fisa the other week. Even the Republican, Johnson. He was, in fact, the only Republican to vote against.