Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

xufapemu

Published Letters: 396     Editor's Choice: 7

  • @ libertarius

    [Read the article: Betrayed by Obama]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    I never said I supported Obama because he could work with Republicans. I've supported Obama from the beginning because I'm a Democratic elected official in Illinois.

    What I said is that he was perceived as different because he eschewed labels and believed in compromise. His speech at the Dem Nat Convention was a preview. Independents and the young felt like here was a politician that would just work to get stuff done. He was a break from the 90's and Bush v Gore.

    The left supported him after Edwards dropped out and Clinton wouldn't apologise for her Iraq war vote.

    Now the left feels like he has betrayed them. My contention is that the young voters and the independent voters who supported Obama because of his willingness to move beyond partisanship don't feel betrayed by this vote.

    And as the campaign moves forward and Obama strengthens his committment to end the war in Iraq, the sting of this vote will fade as well.

  • @Taliesan

    [Read the article: Betrayed by Obama]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    We had better hope the Obama campaign is thinking two or three steps ahead of the Republicans because I guarantee you as much as they hate McCain, they aren't second guessing themselves.

    We're Democrats, so we are incapable of blind faith. But can we at least get our guy elected before we start tearing him down?

    I don't like the FISA bill, I wish Obama hadn't voted for it. But he did and there's no do-overs.

    I'm angry, but I can't help but believe that the over riding concern now for liberals (I won't call myself a progressive) is to get Obama elected and expand the Congressional majority.

    And strip Joe Lieberman of his chair.

    I don't believe for a second that Obama is no different than McCain. For all its faults I believe (as does Noam Chomsky) that the Democratic party is better than the Republican party; on civil rights, health care, peace, gender rights etc.

    Until November, I'm going to work to get Democrats elected. After that we can have our circular firing squad. But until then, I'll do nothing that hinders Democrats or helps Republicans getting elected.

  • @ libertarius

    [Read the article: Betrayed by Obama]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    Which Constitutional rights will the FISA bill violate?

    My understanding is that the 4th amendment rights have already been violated by the telecoms as directed by the executive and the big stink is that this bill grants them retroactive immunity from civil suits.

    It gives telecoms immunity but doesn't prevent anyone from suing the government for violations of 4th amendment rights.

    My understanding of the bill is that it will require FISA court permission to wiretap Americans overseas, makes it illegal to target a foreigner for the purpose of getting around the FISA court on spying on an American, mandates FISA court to review requests before renewing them, it allows warrantless spying in an emergency but requires the government to file the required papers within a week and prohibits the government from using any emergency powers to go around FISA courts in the future.

    Is that about right?

    By the way, the Illinois Democratic party is nowhere near as disorganized as the Illinois Republican party.

  • Man I wish I had a crystal ball

    [Read the article: Betrayed by Obama]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    I know that for those of us who pay attention this vote doesn't make sense. Republicans are going to paint Obama as soft on terrorism no matter what he does.

    But I don't live in Chicago. I live in Southern Illinois and I hear how this is playing in my district.

    I with you on this, I think it lets telecoms off the hook. But if Obama had voted against the bill (or voted for it before he voted against it like Hillary) or simply didn't show up for the vote like McCain, he'd be the scary muslim black man who is coddling the terrorists. And these people would have ate it up.

    The vote is done, its over. We can second guess all we want about whether this will cost him votes, or won't make a difference wit hthe "white working class". My spidey sense tells me it gives him some needed insulation against the coming attacks from the right.

    My over riding concern is getting Democrats elected. If you don't think there's a difference between Democrats and Republicans then fine, go in peace. But if, in the end you know that we must have a Democratic government this year then keep you powder dry until after the election and lets have some regime change.

  • @ Taliesan

    [Read the article: Betrayed by Obama]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    I'm not that smart so I'm afraid you lost me.

    Many laws have been enacted to protect private companies from civil liability and litigation.

    The Bill of Rights has often been found not to be applicable to private entities that have no government connection.

    In this case, the telecom companies were acting as an agent of the government. In effect, their lawyers consulted with the Justice Department and they were told its okey-dokey.

    Now, I don't doubt that the telecoms should have used better due diligence. But if it were I who had their rights violated, I would seek a redress of my grievances from the Department of Justice first. IS there anything in this bill that prevents American citizens from suing the Justice Department or the federal government?

  • Also

    [Read the article: Betrayed by Obama]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    The Bill of Rights often protect us from criminal wrong-doings by our government.

    The telecoms acting as a government agent is akin to the police asking some guy on the street to break into your home to look for drugs. Do you sue the guy who broke into your house or the police?

    Also, the remedy is usually when the criminal is brought to trial, the evidence found illegally would be inadmissible.

    That's the usual remedy under the fourth amendment.

  • @ Klytus

    [Read the article: Betrayed by Obama]
    [Read more letters about this article: Here]

    I seldom ask a question if I don't already know the answer :)