

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Barack Obama's rightward sprint is nowhere more obvious than in his betrayal on the FISA bill.
This bill allows the President to grab all incoming and outgoing international communications without a warrant.
The ACLU says it represents "an unprecedented extension of governmental surveillance over Americans."
Obama, sounding on Friday a lot like Bush, said: "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay."
Here's what Bush said the same day as Obama: The bill "allows our intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists abroad, while protecting the liberties of Americans here at home."
But it doesn't protect our liberties, and Obama ought to know that.
Obama said it "firmly reestablishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance."
But the ACLU notes that the bill "permits only minimal court oversight. The FISA Court only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what, or where will actually be tapped, thereby undercutting any meaningful for the court and violating the Fourth Amendment."
What's more, in the incredibly rare instances where the FISA Court denies a warrant to the President, under the new bill the President can go ahead and do the wiretapping anyway while the appeals process continues, a process that the ACLU says can take two months.
Russ Feingold calls the idea that this is a good compromise "a farce" and "political cover."
Says Feingold: "Anybody who claims this is an OK bill, I really question if they've even read it."
Has Obama?
If not, that's a problem.
And if he has, and still approves of it, that's an even bigger one.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine.
Copyright 2008 The Progressive Magazine
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Barack Obama's rightward sprint is nowhere more obvious than in his betrayal on the FISA bill.
This bill allows the President to grab all incoming and outgoing international communications without a warrant.
The ACLU says it represents "an unprecedented extension of governmental surveillance over Americans."
Obama, sounding on Friday a lot like Bush, said: "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay."
Here's what Bush said the same day as Obama: The bill "allows our intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists abroad, while protecting the liberties of Americans here at home."
But it doesn't protect our liberties, and Obama ought to know that.
Obama said it "firmly reestablishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance."
But the ACLU notes that the bill "permits only minimal court oversight. The FISA Court only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what, or where will actually be tapped, thereby undercutting any meaningful for the court and violating the Fourth Amendment."
What's more, in the incredibly rare instances where the FISA Court denies a warrant to the President, under the new bill the President can go ahead and do the wiretapping anyway while the appeals process continues, a process that the ACLU says can take two months.
Russ Feingold calls the idea that this is a good compromise "a farce" and "political cover."
Says Feingold: "Anybody who claims this is an OK bill, I really question if they've even read it."
Has Obama?
If not, that's a problem.
And if he has, and still approves of it, that's an even bigger one.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine.
Copyright 2008 The Progressive Magazine
Barack Obama's rightward sprint is nowhere more obvious than in his betrayal on the FISA bill.
This bill allows the President to grab all incoming and outgoing international communications without a warrant.
The ACLU says it represents "an unprecedented extension of governmental surveillance over Americans."
Obama, sounding on Friday a lot like Bush, said: "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay."
Here's what Bush said the same day as Obama: The bill "allows our intelligence professionals to quickly and effectively monitor the plans of terrorists abroad, while protecting the liberties of Americans here at home."
But it doesn't protect our liberties, and Obama ought to know that.
Obama said it "firmly reestablishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance."
But the ACLU notes that the bill "permits only minimal court oversight. The FISA Court only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what, or where will actually be tapped, thereby undercutting any meaningful for the court and violating the Fourth Amendment."
What's more, in the incredibly rare instances where the FISA Court denies a warrant to the President, under the new bill the President can go ahead and do the wiretapping anyway while the appeals process continues, a process that the ACLU says can take two months.
Russ Feingold calls the idea that this is a good compromise "a farce" and "political cover."
Says Feingold: "Anybody who claims this is an OK bill, I really question if they've even read it."
Has Obama?
If not, that's a problem.
And if he has, and still approves of it, that's an even bigger one.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive magazine.
Copyright 2008 The Progressive Magazine