MADDOW interviews Glenn Greenwald about Dems passing FISA

ONDEMAND HOME
June 20, 2008

The Rachel Maddow Show

Rachel Maddow talks to Salon's Glenn Greenwald about the incredible capitulation in the House today: Dems passed a bill extending the government's right to spy on you!

Comments

Add a comment(14)

I was a fool.

Man, I really believed Obama. I am in Texas and voted for him twice, in the primary and in the caucus. It took over six hours. I donated to his campaign twice. And now I have discontinued my subscription to his email list and will not contribute one more dime, because no "compromise" is worth shredding the constitution and supporting the imperial presidency.

I can forgive a flip flop or two, I can see moderating your position on NAFTA, on free trade, on economic issues, on taxes, on Iraq withdrawal, on whether or not you will sit down with Ahmadinejad, on campaign finance, on health care "universality". Sometimes that is the right move, it is real world politics, I can understand compromising to get something rather than nothing. But the constitution is not on the negotiating table.

So here I sit in a state where my vote won't matter, and when I do vote I am reduced once again to voting for the lesser of two evils. It will be Obama, the Supreme Court is too much to give up, but my enthusiasm is GONE. Obama asked me to believe, and I did. Now I don't.

By TonyCastaldoJune 24, 2008 - 1:58pm

VERY BAD DEAL

OBAMA HAS NO RIGHT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE HIGHEST POSITION ON THE PLANET ,,,WISE UP AMERICA, GET REALISTIC ,,,THE U.S.A. NEEDS EXPERIENCED PEOPLE TO RUN THE SUPER POWER ,, OBAMA STANDS FOR THE DEMISE OF OUR AMERICA. !!!! LET IT RAIN MCCAIN !!

By MIKE IN VA.June 25, 2008 - 8:26am

That's ridiculous.

I may have been fooled by Obama, but Mike in VA is off his rocker. What are you shouting for, Mike?

Obama has every right to be considered like every other citizen. My complaint is that he is not living up to his stated principles. Yet McCain is a tool of the lobbyists and fails not just his own stated principles, he lies at every turn without compunction. Go search for "The Real McCain" on YouTube and watch a few videos. McCain is a thousand times worse than Obama. Despite my dissapointment with Obama's recent decisions, it remains true that Obama walked his talk for decades as a community organizer, taking a 90% pay cut to help others for years and years on end. Even as a legislator making $60K he was giving up hundreds of thousands of dollars every year when he could have been making a fortune as a Harvard Law graduate.

McCain, meanwhile, thinks the fact that he had bad luck qualifies him as commander in chief. I think I have standing to comment, I served my time in the military. And I say, so what? A lot of guys got captured and tortured. That does not impart any special wisdom or skill, and to claim it does is like claiming he was in a bad car accident so that qualifies him to drive the Indy 500. More explicitly, it is simply idiotic. As Wesley Clark notes, McCain has no significant command experience, even as an officer he was just a pilot. So he has no more experience than Obama, except that he grew up the son of an admiral and has NEVER lived among the poor, and his experience in politics has been uniformly questionable.

By TonyCastaldoJune 25, 2008 - 12:27pm

LITERAL IDIOTS

IN MY REAL WORLD ,IT IS JUST CAPITAL LETTERS FOR CONVENIENCE .IN YOU GUYS VIRTUAL WORLD IT IS SHOUTING, GET A REAL LIFE TO ALL YOU BLOGGERS THAT IT BOTHER WHEN I USE CAPITAL LETTERS ,,,GEEZ YOU F- N IDIOTS.!!!

By MIKE IN VA.June 25, 2008 - 2:16pm

Mike In VA, IQ of 50.

I see. You can't type, you can't punctuate, you can't spell, you don't understand grammar, you don't understand proper word usage, and yet you seem to expect people to take you seriously. I think you are just like a street-corner crazy with pissed pants, wearing a tinfoil hat and shouting about aliens to the passing cars. It is comforting to know your ilk is the only kind out there shouting for McCain; it actually does the Republicans more harm than good, because no sane person wants to be associated with you. So keep up the rant, Mike! Every time you open your mouth or start your two-finger poking at the keyboard you create one more drop of evidence for Independents that supporting McCain is purely a game for abject losers.

By TonyCastaldoJune 25, 2008 - 4:13pm

Listen Up Progressives!

If not Obama, who? Let's get real: Obama is not going satisfy our every wish. I don't agree with his support of this legislation either; and I think it is unrealistic for him to believe that he can prosecute these companies once he's in office --- he'll have many more pressing matters to deal with. However, what I believe is central to Obama's philosophy of governance is creating change from the bottom up. Bottom up means that we have to get off our duffs and pressure Obama to do the right thing. Demonizing him, or throwing in the towel or calling a pity-party for yourself is not what struggle for social change is about. Obama is not the Messiah and even if he was, he can only show us the way: in this case, he has shown us that we must organize --- not only to get him elected --- but we must make grassroots organizing a way of life for future social change. Obama has to chose his battles and his battles may not always be ours ---- soooooo ----- agitate for the kind of change YOU value without destroying the leader. Like it or not, Obama is the best thing we've since FDR. And if you think FDR wasn't progressive enough? ----- look what the dogma of classless-socialism has done for the ills of the world. Let's work with someone who can listen to our thirst for a more democratic society.

By tyrdofwaitinJune 25, 2008 - 7:10pm

The problem with financing

tyrdofwaitin: And how exactly do we pressure Obama? I discontinued my subscription to his emailing system; they asked me why and I told them. However, I have donated a total of about $90 to Obama, so they don't answer to me. The great thing about grass roots financing is that he doesn't answer to any special interests. The bad thing about grass roots financing is that he doesn't answer to ANYBODY, he takes the money and we just have to trust him.

So now, we also just have to trust him when he says what Bush says, "I will monitor that program carefully." Riiiight. Carefully. As in once every four years, or whenever it makes news.

I don't want my rights to privacy and freedom from eavesdropping and mail reading and secret taping dependent upon the good judgment of politicians, I want the rule of LAW. I want my Fourth Amendment RIGHT. It no longer exists under this FISA bill. Read it. The President can now demand that any company violate the law, with no recourse to courts, in the name of the "war on terror" by presenting a note from somebody that says they think it is legal. Somebody like John Yoo, or Alberto Gonzales, or any of the rest of the Justice Department partisan goon squad that writes memos that in any real law school would flunk a first year.

Obama has capitulated and there is nothing we can do about it. He has become just another lying, power hungry politician. I have voted for such in the past and will again; but he gets no enthusiasm from me. He gets my vote because I think he is the least likely of the two choices to stack the bench with the religious right. Period. But I no longer believe him. He has gone back on his oath as a Senator to uphold and protect the Constitution. There is no political compromise important enough to break that oath, no amount of security, no amount of money or savings or expediency.

If the rest of the bill was so DAMN important, make the Republicans pass it without telecom immunity. What does this tell you? That the ONLY reason to pass this bill was telecom immunity. Law professors agree there is nothing new in there giving the administration any new powers except for this telecom immunity. It is a total capitulation because the truth is, the telecom companies spied on EVERYBODY. Every single one of us, all our phone conversations, all our emails and faxes. All of us. And the telecoms and the government just don't want you to know that they have the software and ability to record and filter that much communication, and that is what would have been revealed at the trial. That is my guess as a computer scientist, anyway.

By TonyCastaldoJune 26, 2008 - 12:44pm

I Agree Tony...

...except that you're preaching to the choir. We are not helpless and we are not powerless, least of all with Obama. I agree this was a bad mis-step for him --- as bad as his mis-step with the American Muslim community. We can demonize Obama and we can do more than get him elected. We can raise holy hell in the halls of the Obama campaign. Obama has shown us how to use the internet to our advantage. DELUGE the halls of Obama with your disappointment and your outrage. His website has numerous portals for your message and...get your friends involved, too. I've already emailed a broadcast to my cohorts to do the same.

By tyrdofwaitinJune 26, 2008 - 7:10pm

constant surveilance

of the populace is the hallmark of a fascist state.

By k.troutJune 26, 2008 - 10:08pm

The American Muslim Misstep?

tyrdofwaitin: Apparently I am failing to communicate.

Nothing else Obama has done is as bad as supporting FISA.

Dissing the Muslim women was not done by Obama personally, and asking somebody to not be in a picture with you is not a violation of their civil rights, nobody has the constitutional right to be on TV or have their picture taken with a presidential candidate. That was an impolitic move on the part of people that worked for Obama, not his own decision.

Failing to visit mosques: Ditto. Probably his decision, but not a vote to violate people's rights.

Exercising his right to opt-out of public financing: Ditto. This is a strategic decision that violates nobody's constitutional right. He gave plenty of caveats, and it is pretty clear McCain wasn't going to really play ball; McCain said outright he would not act as referee on every commercial that came out, which is exactly the agreement Obama wanted from McCain.

Moderating on NAFTA: Again. No rights violated, no damage to the constitution. Plenty of caveats in the initial discussion, although mainstream media loves to simplify this discussion to the kindergarten level. I think every person in the country old enough to vote understands that if you get stuck in a contract that is killing you, you renegotiate or back out. Saying NAFTA was a bad deal is not repudiating free trade, it is repudiating a particular agreement we thought would be good for us and turns out to really suck for a significant number of states.

Backing up on meetings with Ahmadinejad: Just politics, no constitutional rights involved. Besides, people have to understand the difference between "preconditions" and "preparations", and that is a lot to ask of the kindergarten. A precondition is when we demand the other party take some unilateral action before we ever talk to them. Hold a new election, repudiate terrorism, turn over Mr. X or submit to NATO inspections or whatever. This demands a world figure capitulate on something just to talk to us. If you remember Chris Matthew's wonderful slap-down on the definition of appeasement, surely the best 15 minutes on TV in the last several months, a precondition is the demand that another party appease us before we deign to speak to them about anything. The egotistical assumption of McCain and Bush is that the very act of speaking to the US President is valuable press in and of itself. But of course the opponent's constituents see appeasing the USA as an act of weakness by their leader, and dissing the USA as boldness and strength, so guess how this proceeds: We won't talk, and they preach hate, and Bush gets a lot of vacation time in Crawford. Preparation, on the other hand, demands no appeasement. It identifies who the decision makers are, what we have they might want, what they are willing to give up, and then we talk to them to find out where our preparation meets theirs and see if that gives us ideas so we both win. I have been in dozens of such negotiations, and it does not have to be just for show. It can be substantive. However, in business I have seen CEO's of one business refuse to meet with anybody except the CEO of another. Their preparations are made by subordinates, too, and when they meet they want to know they are meeting with the final decision maker and that they can leave with the committment of the top dog. I think Obama understands this and has not reversed himself on meetings at all.

Rachel is interviewing Glenn Greenwald. Read Glenn's article on this very topic.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/17/hoyer/index.html

I can forgive a lot of politics and compromise. But the FISA bill attacks the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, and Obama's promise is now "I will monitor that program carefully." In other words, just trust him. But that is the whole point, we cannot trust any leader to do what they promise, because they are not constitutionally bound by campaign promises. We have no recourse to the courts if they violate those promises. And now, you have no real recourse to the courts if it turns out the President after Obama, or Obama himself, turns out to be corrupt. Obama really did reverse himself on the promise to filibuster any bill that gave telecoms retroactive immunity, and this bill is EVEN WORSE: It gives telecoms future immunity, all they need is a note from an employee of the President that is not worth the paper it is written upon. Bush, constitutionally, could have pardoned everybody in the telecoms for any crimes committed under his direction. He could not constitutionally pardon future crimes.

That is what Obama has voted for, pardoning all past and future crimes that violate your right to private communications.

He has voted for the imperial presidency, that the President is not just above the law but above the Constitution. The President and the intelligence agencies under his control do not have to respect your right to privacy. And based on a long ugly history of abuse that extends into the present day, there is no plausible reason to believe the government will voluntarily limit their spying to just fighting terrorism. The temptation to reveal juicy details to discredit political opponents is too great. This becomes a first amendment right: Violating your fourth amendment right to privacy can produce blackmail material about your personal life that can be used to threaten you and shut down your dissent, or used to selectively prosecute political opponents for minor or victimless crimes. There are many things which are not illegal in any state that people would like to keep private, like adultery or the use of legal pornography or just talking dirty with their wife on the phone.

Obama has thrown the Fourth amendment under the bus for political expediency, and that is the worst thing he has done to date, by far. Nothing else comes even close to the betrayal of his oath to uphold and defend the constitution of the United States. Nothing.

By TonyCastaldoJune 27, 2008 - 8:13am

I Reiterate Tony...

I get it and the rest of us get it....now it's time for you, and others, to get the word to the Obama gang so that they understand that not everything is negotiable! Get it?

By tyrdofwaitinJune 27, 2008 - 12:18pm

I reiterate tyrdofwaitin....

Your earlier comment seemed to be "If not Obama, Who?"

So we have no choice, which means to the Obama gang, everything is very much negotiable. It reminds me of an old joke in business: A salesman goes to heaven and learns he can stay there or go to hell, its his choice. Heaven is boring with harps, choirs, and picnics. So he decides to see what hell offers. The devil gives him a tour: drunken parties, bands, unlimited sex, lavish feasts, servants galore and hedonism to the max. He returns to heaven, and after a year of boredom decides to go to hell. The devil welcomes him, and shows him to his room; a small cell filled with human waste where he can wait his turn to be tortured. The salesman asks, "Wait! What about all that stuff you promised me?!?" And the devil replies, "You are a salesman, you should understand that. Back then you were a prospect. Now, you are a customer."

And that is what Obama has done, pulled a bait and switch, and now we can't do anything about it because Obama knows McCain would only be worse. So no, I don't "get it." I don't think you get it. Activism won't change a thing; the nomination is over and Obama lied to us, and now that all the voting is over, they don't have to take our calls. It is Obama or McCain, and Obama's team knows the people that care about this issue aren't stupid enough to vote for McCain, and there aren't enough of us to really matter as a voting block that stays home. Game over.

By TonyCastaldoJune 28, 2008 - 5:24pm

FISA

I am 68 years old and a founding member of the Green Party of Texas . Also a Veteran Feminist of America -- active in the women's movement before 1973. If you had told me six years ago I would be supporting Barack Obama rather than the first woman who had a real chance of becoming US president, and over the potential presidential race of Kat Swift (a Texas Green) or Cynthia McKinney, a recent Green Party convert, I would not have believed you. I understood early on that none of the Democratic candidates would be able to withdraw our troops any faster than 16 months, even if there were no other considerations (and I raised my hand at home this afternoon in support of Rachel Maddow on Race to the White House when she was the only panelist to know what Obama actually said he would do about Iraq early in his campaign), but Obama's FISA vote last week shocked and disheartened me. Isn't a lawyer supposed to uphold the law? Isn't a future president supposed to defend the Constitution? Isn't a great politician supposed to understand that democracy needs all four of its legs? individual freedom, popular sovereignty, a social security net, and a free-market economy. And then there is the moral side of the argument.

By Jane W. ElioseffJuly 3, 2008 - 6:47pm

FISA

Folks, I hate to burst your bubble but our privacy or lack there of has been compromised for a lon time. You see, I'm in the military and I am what most people call a spook. I have been in the intel community my whole career and big brother (NSA) has been listening in for some time. You can through in the CIA, FBI, DIA,DNI. The list goes on! What concerns me most about the FISA bill is the legal authority the government would have to use whatever information they have against ordinary americans. It started with the Patriot Act and its only going to get worst.

The biggest treat to our country are not the terrorist folks. We can track them as we did before 9/11, we just didn't act on it. Our government has been using the treat of terrorism as a means to envade the privacy of every american, 9/11 just gave them the perfect excuse to do just that.

Americans have every reason to be afraid. I only wish I could tell you more but I can't. We as americans have grown too complacent and have forgotten the sacrifices it takes to preserve our freedoms.

Some folks might view my comments as paranoia. Do your homework and find out for yourself!

By rayalitradeJuly 4, 2008 - 1:21pm

Comments

Add a comment(14)