If Obama's core value is unity, Democrats should know better than to expect him to fight their partisan fights for them. While he may disappoint them, they can also learn to respect the fact that he's being true to himself.
Last week a mix of water and sanitation experts gathered for World Water Week in Stockholm, Sweden to mull over the world's biggest public health crisis. The problem is that not enough people paid attention.
The conservative Counter-Establishment is the most cast-iron entanglement of alliances and dependencies known in modern American history.
On Monday, Rep. Ron Paul introduced the AFA's legislative package into Congress. This beautifully argued document feels historic and has the ring of great power to correct great injustice.
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.
The truth is, I never thought I'd be running for president on a platform of restoring the Constitution and America's standing in the world or something as elementary as honoring the oath of office we take.
So here we are, balanced at the precise point where the bottom-up dynamics of Web 2.0 meets the top-down dynamics of an American presidential campaign.
Customers who've had their rights violated should get their day in court. We'll never learn the facts about the warrantless wiretapping program if the telecoms are let off the hook.
Tomorrow night may be the last debate in the Democratic primary race. This will be the twentieth debate so far, which has to be some kind of record. ...
If the Bush administration releases the fourth amendment that it is currently holding hostage, I'm happy to consider the Supreme Court decision on the second amendment final and decisive.
Obama is raising more money via the Internet in small donations than any candidate in history. Hooray! But it is just as true that he is raising more money from fat cat donations than any candidate in history.
It is one thing for a presumptive nominee to adjust policy positions to reach out to constituencies he wants to bring in to his coalition. Warrantless wiretapping has no constituency.
Even though there are many pluses in the FISA bill, the blogs are screaming bloody murder over Obama's support for it.
The first names to pop up, of course, where Dodd and Russ Feingold, the heart, soul and conscience of the Senate. They were on the front line of the Senate fight every step of the way.
As Senator, I will return Idaho's representation to the Frank Church values in keeping big government and secret government out of American's personal lives.
We must not let anyone advance the bogus argument -- repeated by Joe Klein -- that protecting American's against unwarranted search and seizure necessarily requires a compromise in their security.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
MARTIN - Get with the program, its the same constitution that allowed your future generations savings to be transfered to Haliburton and Exxon, murdered over a million Iraqis, lets Kissenger walk free, assassinated Allende and Lumumba, distributes weapons of mass destruction to undemocratic states and others that refuse to obey U.N. resolutions.
There is hardly a U.S. president alive who should not be infront of a human rights court and you think this is the issue?
You think the last straw is FISA? Dont you remember the Rio Summit chaired by Gorbachev when Bush Snr refused to protect the environment, later Kyoto, not to mention the ban on Land Mines.
We are talking about a country that elected George W Bush, TWIICE!!!! and you are proposing a sane argument to the electorate?????????????????????????? I tell you what, pose your argument to Paris Hilton and if she gets it I will follow you around the world.
Michale,
You probably should have stuck to your technique of evasion and obfuscation, because I literally destroyed you in this debate.
:D If you say so...
Simply because you refuse to accept the facts, does not destruction make.. :D
But, I do appreciate the opportunity to prove how utterly ignorant you are of the issues facing us.
Please don't be offended by this.
There is no shame in not knowing everything..
I am going to move on to other commentaries now. I'll be generous to you and let you have the last word.
It's the least I can do after so utterly destroying your credibility...
Michale.....
I'll let others decide who won this debate, suffice to say you utterly failed to answer, or even address the bulk of my arguments.
Hanging your entire case on the concept that international and domestic communications cannot be separated, even if true (though you failed to provide a single fact that proves this point) fails to address the 4th amendment violations that occur AFTER the communications have been "flagged;" when they are REVIEWED (a.k.a. searched) by a GOVERNMENT AGENT, all prior to a "Judge" issuing a "warrant," based on "probable cause," which "particularly describes the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Additionally, you COMPLETELY IGNORED my points about potential abuses. Why? Well, because those threats are very real and you have no answer that could alleviate these concerns.
Next, you contradicted yourself several times by claiming only a "computer" analyzes the communication, when earlier you admitted that once a computer finishes violating your 4th amendment rights, having then "flagged" your communications based on some words (chosen, no doubt by a covert government agent), it makes its way into the hands of a government employee (yes, a human being) who studies (a.k.a. searches) that communication without due process as described above, in conflict with the 4th amendment.
The ACLU position on the new FISA bill:
The FAA violates the Fourth Amendment because it allows the government to gobble up the constitutionally protected communications of American citizens and residents without getting individualized warrants, and without specifying the time, place or length of the surveillance, and not specifying how the info gathered will be disseminated, or how long it"ll be kept. (You know, the who/what/where/when/why.)
The FAA also violates the First Amendment by chilling lawful expressive speech without adequate justification by authorizing the government to intercept constitutionally protected communications without judicial oversight.
The challenged law violates the principle of separation of powers by allowing the government to continue surveillance activities even if the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has deemed those activities illegal.
Next stop.... court.