I Want Immunity Too

10 07 2008

So, I want immunity too. If corporations don’t have to be responsible for their behavior then I don’t want to either.

First of all, if I have immunity, then I won’t ever be a “targeted American.” I don’t want to be a “targeted American.” I think that would suck. My bank account would not be frozen. There wouldn’t be “reverse targeting” on my humble, exciting life in Hooterville.

The FISA situation is not a left or right issue. This just gives Washington more control and it’s about control and money. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, all of those Presidential Executive Directives that George Bush signed, who’s going to give them up? No one. No one wants to do that.

The lead story on the news this morning was Jesse Jackson saying ugly things about Barack Obama. People say, and do, ugly things all the time. People talk behind other people’s back. If you are in Jesse Jackson’s role as someone who has a mic in front of your face all the time, he should have remembered that the mic is always hot. First rule when I was in radio. The mic is always on.

In my opinion, this is a diversion or mainstream media is out of the loop.

Jesse said the word “nuts.” So we are talking about Jesse Jackson saying something douchehattery, MSM lets Bill O’Reilly set the stage for today’s news cycle but what we should be talking about is FISA (that pesky constitution being messed with) or what the hell is happening behind the scenes in relation to Iran setting off missiles.

After Iraq, I’m not so trusting with the MSM newsfolks when it comes to this stuff.

Yeah, I want immunity.

Where is Edward R. Murrow when you need him? He would be all over these things without any of the static.

More from The Crone.


Fourth Amendment 1789 – 2008

9 07 2008

Obama voted Yes. Clinton voted No.

The Senate Wednesday approved a bill to put new rules in place for intelligence agency eavesdropping on suspected terrorists.

The bill also effectively protects telephone companies from being sued for cooperating with a government surveillance program launched in the wake of the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. The White House pushed hard for the provision, with a threat to veto the bill if it did not contain protection for phone companies.

The vote was 69-28, with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois voting in favor. Republican candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona was not present for the vote.


The bill, formally known as the FISA Amendments Act, updates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It will:

  • Require the secret court set up to oversee FISA to review the surveillance of any targeted American whether the person is in the United States or abroad;
  • Provide for the FISA court to sign off on procedures for removing the name of any American inadvertently captured in a communication with a foreign target;
  • Prohibit reverse targeting, which is when intelligence officials eavesdrop on a foreigner’s communications overseas as a means to spy on someone in the United States.
  • Close a loophole by explicitly establishing the 1978 law as the exclusive means for authorizing electronic surveillance;
  • Set up a procedure for federal judges to determine whether a telecommunications company can be sued for providing the intelligence community access to its networks without a court order.
  • So, my question is, who determines who a suspected terrorist is?

    Story here

    Photo credit Wil Wheaton

    The Long-Term Affects Of FISA

    26 06 2008

    I won’t serve as an apologist for the weak backbone of the Democrats in Washington right now. In my personal political views, I am very liberal when it comes to social causes because they impact me personally and actually more fiscally conservative when it comes to this nation’s money because it’s my money.

    No, this does not make me a Blue Dog Democrat as the lot of them tend to vote very far to the right on social issues.

    Sorry, I’m just not into that whole mindset.

    But there is one thing, ONE THING, that irritates me in politics more than anything. Today, I’m aggravated with the Democrats on FISA and it goes back to something I said a year ago which is coming to fruition at this time. My thoughts, (and I can’t find the post) was that whoever we elected to lead this country, well, would they be willing to strike down some of the directives that BushCo has put in place? My lack of optimism, if I recall correctly, ran pretty deep. Would our elected officials be willing to make decisions that wouldn’t violate a person’s rights and be willing to stand up to corporate greed in a country where the rich get richer and the poor are eating ramen noodles?

    The answer is bleak.

    In an analysis released Tuesday, Maplight.org, a nonprofit campaign finance watchdog group, found that lawmakers voting Friday in support of the wiretap deal averaged roughly twice the donations from the nation’s leading telecoms — Verizon, Sprint and AT&T — over the last three years as those voting against it.

    The figures might not have raised eyebrows except that the proposal contained a gift for the industry, effectively granting retroactive legal immunity to the telecoms that enabled the Bush administration’s warrantless eavesdropping program. The immunity provision — blasted by civil libertarians for putting industry concerns above Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure — rescues the companies from the roughly 40 lawsuits pending against them. Some money-in-politics watchdogs say the connection between the contributions and votes is no accident.

    There is no such thing, in my book at least, as a reluctant vote. And it wasn’t just Barack Obama, who I might remind you didn’t even show up for this vote, it was a whole mess of democrats and republicans.

    Only a few stood firm on this including Russ Feingold.

    Language that appears likely to let telecommunications companies escape lawsuits over the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program drew sharp opposition from liberal Democrats such as Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold.

    Feingold said the bill would be a “get out of jail free” card for companies that went along with a program critics say was illegal, and would give the government sweeping powers to spy on Americans.

    “This legislation is going to be remembered as the legislation in which Congress granted the executive branch the power to sweep up all of our international communications, with very few controls or oversight,” he said.

    I may be getting my libertarian on here but this just reeks. It’s like in the movie of the Shawshank Redemption where Andy Dufresne takes that small rock hammer and over years creates a big enough hole to get out of the prison.

    That’s how I feel about our government right now. They are creating holes when it comes to civil liberties. And I’m with much of the progressive blogosphere when we see that Barack Obama said he would filibuster this bill last year and he didn’t. I ain’t happy, campers. Obama simply blew it.

    Our elected officials are taking small pieces out of our individual rights such as the Fourth Amendment. This is basically being gutted and whittled away and one of these mornings, we are going to wake up and find that all the words we keep hearing about  the constitution have just been that, words. I’d like to see some action please.

    I thought, naively, that I might get a Camelot with either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama this year.

    I won’t.

    It’s just politics as usual.