Question
•
General Government, Politics & Law
I have so far this election season been leaning towards Senator Obama. But I am concerned that he has of late seemed to be willing to change his position on a number of issues, and this makes me question whether he will do what he promises to do if he is elected. I was just curious how the die hard supporters feel about this one.
[If you want to rant about Obama being a secret muslim, or a closet communist, I can't stop you, but I was hoping to just understand how the Senator's position is viewed by his supporters.]
This is from this weekend's New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html?ref...
Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity
By JAMES RISEN
WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama’s decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters.
Thousands of them are now using the same grass-roots organizing tools previously mastered by the Obama campaign to organize a protest against his decision.
In recent days, more than 7,000 Obama supporters have organized on a social networking site on Mr. Obama’s own campaign Web site. They are calling on Mr. Obama to reverse his decision to endorse legislation supported by President Bush to expand the government’s domestic spying powers while also providing legal protection to the telecommunication companies that worked with the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 attacks.
During the Democratic primary campaign, Mr. Obama vowed to fight such legislation to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. But he has switched positions, and now supports a compromise hammered out between the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership. The bill is expected to come to a vote on the Senate floor next Tuesday. That decision, one of a number made by Mr. Obama in recent weeks intended to position him toward the political center as the general election campaign heats up, has brought him into serious conflict for the first time with liberal bloggers and commentators and his young supporters.
Many of them have seen the issue of granting immunity to the telecommunications companies as a test of principle in their opposition to Mr. Bush’s surveillance program.
“I don’t think there has been another instance where, in meaningful numbers, his supporters have opposed him like this,” said Glenn Greenwald, a Salon.com writer who opposes Mr. Obama’s new position. “For him to suddenly turn around and endorse this proposal is really a betrayal of what so many of his supporters believed he believed in.”
Jane Hamsher, a liberal blogger who also opposes immunity for the phone companies, said she had been flooded with messages from Obama supporters frustrated with his new stance.
“The opposition to Obama’s position among his supporters is very widespread,” said Ms. Hamsher, founder of the Web site firedoglake.com. “His promise to filibuster earlier in the year, and the decision to switch on that is seen as a real character problem. I know people who are really very big Obama supporters are very disillusioned.”
One supporter, Robert Arellano, expressed his anger on the Obama site.
“I have watched your campaign with genuine enthusiasm,” Mr. Arellano wrote, “and I have given you money. For the first time in my life, I have sensed the presence of a presidential candidate who might actually bring some meaningful change to the corrupt cesspool of national politics. But your about-face on the FISA bill genuinely angers and alarms me.”
For now, the campaign is trying to put a positive spin on the new FISA fight among its supporters.
“The fact that there is an open forum on BarackObama.com where supporters can say whether they agree or disagree speaks to a strength of our campaign,” said Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman.
Several activists and bloggers predicted that Mr. Obama’s move toward the center on some issues could sharply reduce the intensity of support he has enjoyed from liberal activists. Such enthusiasm helped power his effort to secure the Democratic nomination, and it has been one of his campaign’s most important tools for fund-raising and organizing around the country.
Markos Moulitsas, a liberal blogger and founder of the Daily Kos Web site, said he had decided to cut back on the amount of money he would contribute to the Obama campaign because of the FISA reversal.
“I will continue to support him,” Mr. Moulitsas said in an interview. “But I was going to write him a check, and I decided I would rather put that money with Democrats who will uphold the Constitution.”
Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer who advises the Obama campaign, said Tuesday in an interview that Mr. Obama had decided to support the compromise FISA legislation only after concluding it was the best deal possible.
“This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip,” Mr. Craig said. “Obviously, there was an element of what’s possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire.”
[If you want to rant about Obama being a secret muslim, or a closet communist, I can't stop you, but I was hoping to just understand how the Senator's position is viewed by his supporters.]
This is from this weekend's New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/politics/02fisa.html?ref...
Obama Voters Protest His Switch on Telecom Immunity
By JAMES RISEN
WASHINGTON — Senator Barack Obama’s decision to support legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants has led to an intense backlash among some of his most ardent supporters.
Thousands of them are now using the same grass-roots organizing tools previously mastered by the Obama campaign to organize a protest against his decision.
In recent days, more than 7,000 Obama supporters have organized on a social networking site on Mr. Obama’s own campaign Web site. They are calling on Mr. Obama to reverse his decision to endorse legislation supported by President Bush to expand the government’s domestic spying powers while also providing legal protection to the telecommunication companies that worked with the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 attacks.
During the Democratic primary campaign, Mr. Obama vowed to fight such legislation to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA. But he has switched positions, and now supports a compromise hammered out between the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership. The bill is expected to come to a vote on the Senate floor next Tuesday. That decision, one of a number made by Mr. Obama in recent weeks intended to position him toward the political center as the general election campaign heats up, has brought him into serious conflict for the first time with liberal bloggers and commentators and his young supporters.
Many of them have seen the issue of granting immunity to the telecommunications companies as a test of principle in their opposition to Mr. Bush’s surveillance program.
“I don’t think there has been another instance where, in meaningful numbers, his supporters have opposed him like this,” said Glenn Greenwald, a Salon.com writer who opposes Mr. Obama’s new position. “For him to suddenly turn around and endorse this proposal is really a betrayal of what so many of his supporters believed he believed in.”
Jane Hamsher, a liberal blogger who also opposes immunity for the phone companies, said she had been flooded with messages from Obama supporters frustrated with his new stance.
“The opposition to Obama’s position among his supporters is very widespread,” said Ms. Hamsher, founder of the Web site firedoglake.com. “His promise to filibuster earlier in the year, and the decision to switch on that is seen as a real character problem. I know people who are really very big Obama supporters are very disillusioned.”
One supporter, Robert Arellano, expressed his anger on the Obama site.
“I have watched your campaign with genuine enthusiasm,” Mr. Arellano wrote, “and I have given you money. For the first time in my life, I have sensed the presence of a presidential candidate who might actually bring some meaningful change to the corrupt cesspool of national politics. But your about-face on the FISA bill genuinely angers and alarms me.”
For now, the campaign is trying to put a positive spin on the new FISA fight among its supporters.
“The fact that there is an open forum on BarackObama.com where supporters can say whether they agree or disagree speaks to a strength of our campaign,” said Bill Burton, a campaign spokesman.
Several activists and bloggers predicted that Mr. Obama’s move toward the center on some issues could sharply reduce the intensity of support he has enjoyed from liberal activists. Such enthusiasm helped power his effort to secure the Democratic nomination, and it has been one of his campaign’s most important tools for fund-raising and organizing around the country.
Markos Moulitsas, a liberal blogger and founder of the Daily Kos Web site, said he had decided to cut back on the amount of money he would contribute to the Obama campaign because of the FISA reversal.
“I will continue to support him,” Mr. Moulitsas said in an interview. “But I was going to write him a check, and I decided I would rather put that money with Democrats who will uphold the Constitution.”
Greg Craig, a Washington lawyer who advises the Obama campaign, said Tuesday in an interview that Mr. Obama had decided to support the compromise FISA legislation only after concluding it was the best deal possible.
“This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip,” Mr. Craig said. “Obviously, there was an element of what’s possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire.”
-
Answered It's perfectly logical. Here's what I think ....
honestly, this bill does not allow the present administration to have immunity..and if the telecom companies do, they may be more open to testifying if needed.
Sort of the same "logic" behind Congress not impeaching.we do not want to give an ugly taste prior to the elections. But, these people can be charged with certain crimes after 1/21/09...if the right people get into office. -
Answered It's perfectly logical. Here's what I think ....
It is a relief to know that someone who may be our next President, actually takes the time to analyze things as new facts are presented and then bases his decision on them. This is much better than taking a dogmatic position and just sticking to it no matter what the current circumstances and conditions are. We have seen what that type of thinking has done to this country for eight years. -
Answered It's perfectly logical. Here's what I think ....
I wouldnt call deciding to compromise a change in position...its not that hes changed his mind but hes just willing to work with the other side to come up with a solution. Something that both parties could learn from. -
Answered It's perfectly logical. Here's what I think ....
So, can any of you say YOU NEVER changed your mind or opinion about something? Why is it so bad to flip flop? Um, I'd rather for someone to be open minded about certain issues and able to change his/her mind than STAY THE COURSE MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!!!!!!! -
I agree with you. If a candidate can articulate why he has changed (or modified or refined or [pick your own]) his position then I as a voter can understand how he views things. On the other hand, if a candidate takes one position on Monday and by Friday is extolling the opposite position, without explanation or acknowledgment, that makes me wonder about his motivations.
-
Answered It's perfectly logical. Here's what I think ....
I agree with Senator Obama because he understood the harm for Al Gore and John Kerry when they did not move to the center. But, I am sad that the Democrat party will let these Republican trick us again to vote for them because we or not out their fighting like we should because we think our candidate is changing. He said, their is no red america and no blue america this is the United States of America. I can only say Democrat do not lose ground hold on because it not worth getting if it not worth fighting for. HOLD OUR HEADS UP and fight like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is on the same ticket. -
Answered It's perfectly logical. Here's what I think ....
I don't think his vote was bad at all. This bill allowed for judicial oversight of the telecoms and the information the government is obtaining... thats better than what was in place... Not to mention the fact that the CEO's of these companies should not be held liable for the governments demands for the information the hold. The government will get it regardless of who stands in there way. Would you as a CEO stand up to the FBI or the CIA for the privacy of Americans? And if you did, do you honestly think that you would stop them from obtaining that information? I think not. -
Answered I don't understand it either. Here's what I think....
I think I'm starting to believe all those Obama haters....lol....I don't hate him but maybe he isn't what he seems to be. Well I wouldn't be surprised because he is after all a politician and after all he is very new with this experience. But yeah you are certainly right he has changed on a lot of things and is really acting out in a way I don't understand, I think he should try to be a little more humble at least until the day he wins but in his mind I think he already thinks he's president. This is all confusing. -
Answered It's perfectly logical. Here's what I think ....
7,000 out of several million supporters does not seem like a significant number to me.
Was anyone planning on suing the telecommunication companies? Should we sue? Does legal immunity even matter unless someone was planning on legal repercussions? -
my opinion is that dubya knows that he crossed the line and that sooner or later the sh*ts gonna hit the fan so he better start covering his tracks and protecting those he duped into breaking the law for him now....why blame the telecom companies, I mean if the president of the united states and their bullies ordered someone to do it, most people would follow orders without a second thought....wouldnt you assume that you would be protected under the law if ordered to do something so by the federal governement? Personally I wouldnt, but I know better.
-
It's called the "Nuremberg Defense", and it has no legal merit. This is from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl", literally "order is order") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named. Before the end of World War II, the Allies suspected such a defense might be employed, and issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which specifically stated that this was not a valid defense against charges of war crimes.
Thus, under the Nuremberg Principles, "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes, although it might influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty. "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
The United States military adjusted the Uniform Code of Military Justice after World War II. They included a rule nullifying this defense, essentially stating that American military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders. This defense is still used often, however, reasoning that an unlawful order presents a dilemma from which there is no legal escape. One who refuses an unlawful order will still probably be jailed for refusing ...It's called the "Nuremberg Defense", and it has no legal merit. This is from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl", literally "order is order") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named. Before the end of World War II, the Allies suspected such a defense might be employed, and issued the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal, which specifically stated that this was not a valid defense against charges of war crimes.
Thus, under the Nuremberg Principles, "defense of superior orders" is not a defense for war crimes, although it might influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty. "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
The United States military adjusted the Uniform Code of Military Justice after World War II. They included a rule nullifying this defense, essentially stating that American military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders. This defense is still used often, however, reasoning that an unlawful order presents a dilemma from which there is no legal escape. One who refuses an unlawful order will still probably be jailed for refusing orders (and in some countries probably killed and then his superior officer will simply carry out the order for him or order another soldier to do it), and one who accepts one will probably be jailed for committing unlawful acts, in a Catch-22 dilemma.
All US military personnel are supposed to receive annual training in the Law of Armed Conflict, which delineates lawful and unlawful behaviors during armed conflicts, and is derived from the Geneva Conventions, a subset of international law. This training is designed to ensure that US military personnel are familiar with their military, ethical and legal obligations during wartime but proof of military personnel receiving this training is difficult to substantiate and is often not received.(less) -
I agree with your point that it is not an acceptable excuse and as I said personally I would know better. But I still find a few problems with it.
First of all the The Nuremberg Defense came about as a result of the prosecution of War Crimes committed during WWII, referring to the slaughter of millions of people. This is obviously illegal and a completely different situation than a communications company giving into the demands of the federal government access to communication cirtcuits.
Secondly this applies only to the legal defense. It does not prevent the prosecution or persecution of the individual for non-compliance in the first place. Like the article says its a catch-22
Do as they say now, possibly avoid any prosecution....or refuse and be prosecuted for sure. You may win in the long run, but whoever really wins a battle against the man??? -
You're right about it being a very difficult situation for a soldier. I don't pretend to think that every soldier in every situation weighs the constitutionality of every order he has received. But when it comes to corporate suits whose lives are certainly not at risk sitting in a board room somewhere I don't think the same circumstances apply. If the CEO of Verizon (and his own attorneys) are asked to do something that in their reasonable opinion violates the Constitution they have some obligation to do something other than blindly follow instructions. Unlike on a battlefield, a corporation can walk into any Federal courtroom in the United States and ask a judge to evaluate their "orders" before possibly violating the rights of thousands of Americans.
-
Answered It's perfectly logical. Here's what I think ....
I think (my opinion), that we don't all know EVERYTHING going on in DC. It is called National Security and is on a need to know basis. Since Mr. Obama is now been declared the Dem candidate (whatever happened to the convention and why are they wasting all that money and fuel to have one?) by CNN, he has been briefed and seen that this is a "necessary evil".You are likely to see more of these "changes" in him as time progresses and he is exposed to the reality of the world's problem. Problems we are not privy to.
THIS is why I could never vote for him....lack of EXPERIENCE.