Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Swing District Dems voted for FISA Compromise

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-09T02:46:13.920-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、...

2009-09-10T01:05:40.920-04:00

艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!

艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表

水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信...

2009-03-11T05:11:00.001-04:00

^^ nice blog!! ^@^徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社...

2009-03-11T05:11:00.000-04:00

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,...

2009-02-12T22:13:00.000-05:00

Kagro.Not the people, the telecoms. The little pe...

2008-06-23T15:14:00.000-04:00

Kagro.

Not the people, the telecoms. The little people can still be prosecuted.

Let me give an example: torture at Gitmo.

The U.S. government was going to have the FBI handle the interrogations. The FBI agents actually ordered to do the interrogations using less-than-legal methods refused. Why? Because they could be prosecuted (well, I assume a number of them didn't want to regardless, but the excuse was that they could be prosecuted). So they ended up not doing it.

In this case, the telecom is immune to prosecution IF it fingers the 'little guy' who told them to commit the crime. Those little guys are going to be ripe for prosecution- who cares about the FBI or CIA low level agent? Not like Congress or the Feds are going to protect them. So what should happen is-

Cheney: "I don't like this guy, tap his phone".
Robert Mueller: "Yes sir, I'll have my people get on it immediately".
RM: "You, flunky! Tap this guy's phone".
Flunky: "Sure, as soon as I see a warrant".
RM: "We don't need a warrant! Tap his phone".
Flunky: "No sir"
RM: "Why not?"
Flunky: "I don't want to go to jail, sir".
RM: "Well, have the telecom do it".
Flunky: "Then they get prosecuted unless they give up my name, so I'll still end up in jail".
RM: "Well, Bush will make sure you're not prosecuted".
Flunky: "Those records will be out there forever, Bush won't be President forever. You think he's going to pardon a flunky like me? He doesn't even know who I am."
RM: "Do it or I'll make your life miserable".
Flunky: "Do you know prisoners do to FBI agents who end up in Federal prison, sir?"
RM: ....

That's the way you stop an Administration from doing something illegal. You prosecute the flunkies who actually do the work. Start doing that, and the flunkies stop helping the Adminstration.

I think this law is well designed for that.

Matthew,The old FISA did all of that, too. And yet...

2008-06-22T13:26:00.000-04:00

Matthew,

The old FISA did all of that, too. And yet here we are, having to retroactively immunize the people who broke that perfectly clear law.

If this were a gun law, the right would have no problem at all recognizing the problem. They'd lean on their favorite old refrain: It's not that there aren't enough laws, it's that nobody's enforcing the ones we have.

Targeting a U.S. citizen at the command of the president is a crime.

So, who's prosecuting?

Contempt of Congress is a crime too. Where's the prosecution on that one?

Ah, yes. The president has ordered the prosecutors... not to prosecute.

But I'm sure this law will be, like, you know, totally different.

You don't hand this "administration" anything new. Nothing.

Repeal FISA is up and running. Anyone who wants to...

2008-06-22T12:58:00.000-04:00

Repeal FISA is up and running. Anyone who wants to is welcome to sign up and become a Poster on it. The purpose of the blog is to organize a drive to repeal the FISA laws and all laws that pardon or give immunity from prosecution anyone who has violated the Constitution during the Bush Administration.

That is why we want everyone to be able to Post so they can start a conversation about an idea they have to make this happen.

Stop on by and check it out. By all means leave a comment and sign up to blog with us as we figure out what needs to be done to return our Fourth Amendment Rights and our rule of law.

http://repealfisa.wordpress.com/

Guess what, jqb: Nixon didn't go to jail, either....

2008-06-22T09:55:00.000-04:00

Guess what, jqb: Nixon didn't go to jail, either. The GOP forced him to resign in the hope that doing so would stave off a slaughter in the 1974 midterms. (It didn't.)

The biggest malefactors seldom get punished in the way we think they deserve. Stalin died in his bed, Hitler got to choose suicide over capture.

By the way: The bill, as written, sunsets in five years. By which time FISA will be the least of our worries.

Meanwhile, for those of you who think that Hillary would have been better on this: In January, when she was still the likely nominee, she promised to oppose telco immunity. In February, she couldn't be bothered to be present when it came up for a vote in the Senate. Obama at least showed up and voted the right way back then.

I'm amazed that's what some people expect when we ...

2008-06-22T04:54:00.000-04:00

I'm amazed that's what some people expect when we need Iraq over, health care passed, the environment dealt with in a real way, etc. Making sure Bush and Cheney and Rice go to jail is so far down the list of priorities, I don't even see them.

I'm amazed at your blatant stupidity. Never punishing perpetrators of horrendous crimes, and instead rewarding them with government pensions and massive speaking fees will result in the repetition and escalation of such crimes. By the time Obama gets into office, he'll have not just Iraq to be "over" -- as if that were possible -- but Iran too (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20140.htm). And your false dichotomy is absurd; a criminal prosecution of ... criminals doesn't prevent the execution of other executive functions.

Obama has said that he is imperfect and will disappoint, and he has done so big time, putting a 2009 political calculation ahead of protecting the Constitution and the rule of law. Thinking about 2009 may look like a long term strategy, but in fact it is grossly short-sighted unless one doesn't expect the Republic to last past that.

p.s.: When the government wants to evade FISA and ...

2008-06-21T23:50:00.000-04:00

p.s.: When the government wants to evade FISA and tap a call, it frequently relies upon foreign (read: Israeli or British) surveillance capabilities here.

Specific example: In the 1990s, when I was a securities analyst in Boston, a competitor working for a New York investment bank made a tacky joke on his company's morning sales call, referring to an attempt on Hillary Clinton's life.

He did this on the morning that Bill Clinton was traveling to Boston. He made his tasteless joke and then returned to his hotel room within a half an hour. By the time he got there, he was greeted by Secret Service agents who quizzed him about his call.

Anyone who thinks the government can't listen in is kidding themselves.

matthew h, I have not read the law, so I don't kno...

2008-06-21T23:45:00.000-04:00

matthew h, I have not read the law, so I don't know whether the following is relevant: A lot of purely domestic sessions cross international borders between Point A and Point B. This is not only true of e-mails, but increasingly of telephone calls too.

Thus, when I read that the government isn't intercepting "domestic communications," as a former telecom analyst I consider this the equivalent of saying that U.S. carbon emissions don't matter because, after all, they only enter domestic airspace.

OK, since I'm too stupid to figure this out on my ...

2008-06-21T22:32:00.000-04:00

OK, since I'm too stupid to figure this out on my own, somebody help me out here.

The new FISA....

-Makes it a crime to target somebody in the U.S. (or a U.S. citizen).

-Makes it a crime for a telecom to help do an unlawful tap (ie., one in the U.S.).

-Makes the FISA court check legality after, not before.

So, if somebody uses FISA to tap between me and my mom in Ohio, the telecom will catch it if they are asked to help (because it targets a domestic), FISA will catch it, and the agent in question will be punished, and quite possibly imprisoned.

I'm sorry, but if they target somebody domestic, it should be ridiculously easy to catch. Sure, they'll tap first and get caught later, but as far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing. If you get court approval for something illegal (because you phrased it cleverly), and you get caught, you can just say the court gave you the OK and get away with it. If you want to do something illegal and then try to get the court's approval, that's a really big risk.

From what I see of this law, it's not allowed to target people in the U.S. From what I know of telecommunications, it's ridiculously easy to see if somebody is abusing this when they go to file the paperwork.

Other than the usual hyperbole, what *specific* thing are you concerned about them doing that this law lets them get away with?

Cugel: Do a little research on this (instead of ju...

2008-06-21T20:44:00.000-04:00

Cugel: Do a little research on this (instead of just thinking of something and running with it), and you'll find that Obama has been solidly against retroactive immunity for the telecom companies AND against expanding government surveillance. In his statement, he admits that the FISA compromise bill is kind of shitty but better than last year's proposals, and that he will try to remove the immunity provision in the Senate.

In this guest opinion, originally from the Chicago Tribune, a former colleague of Sen. Obama's from UChicago law school writes about the phone call he received from Obama to discuss the constitutionality of the surveillance before a vote was taken on immunity. Very impressive.

Rob,If I'm not mistaken, the points plotted on the...

2008-06-21T17:48:00.000-04:00

Rob,

If I'm not mistaken, the points plotted on the Super Tracker are aggregations of daily national polling. To read more about this, click the "methodology" label on the left side of the page--the first several posts that will come up deal with the trendline.

This is nothing but a hypothesis:I can imagine tha...

2008-06-21T15:55:00.000-04:00

This is nothing but a hypothesis:

I can imagine that the leadership, whose role is pick the winning issues and then push them, told liberals some months back that this wasn't a winning issue but that they'd allow some time for liberals to gather support for their position.

In that time, liberals did not gather additional support. Why? Taking a look at that could yield some insights into the Democratic Party's chronic inability to rally the public to many of its issues.

First off, liberals did a poor job of framing the issue. They talked about "FISA" and "Telecom Immunity" and "Civil Liberties," instead of saying what they really were doing, which was trying to find out exactly what phone calls and e-mails the government has been stealing, and why.

Secondly, and related to the first point, liberals preached to the choir. They didn't bother to reach out beyond their borders by stating the issue in terms that non-liberals could relate to.

Thirdly, I see no evidence that liberals tried to compromise and settle for a much higher-profile revelation of the nature and scope of the surveillance, using hearings to do it. Of course, this would have required them to a) get their hands dirty, something purists never want to do, and b) frame the issue in terms that non-liberals and non-policy wonks could relate to.

Isn't this, in many ways, the story of the Democratic Party over the past 35 years? Our side has got to re-learn the art of talking to the masses, or any victories will be temporary and shallow.

Obama could have sunk this legislation months ago ...

2008-06-21T15:53:00.000-04:00

Obama could have sunk this legislation months ago by a simple phone call to Pelosi telling her he wanted the bill buried.

I don't think we can know that without knowing why Pelosi and Reid decided to bring this bill back in the first place rather than leaving things alone. In any case, I agree with some of the others that you're vastly overestimating the willingness of the congressional Democrats to jump when Obama says so. They won't even be doing that when he's president, much less when he's only the presumptive nominee recovering from deep divisions in the party.

Also, if the actions are unconstitutional, it doesn't matter what legislation Congress passes. No legislation can make them constitutional, and no one's proposed a constitutional amendment as far as I know.

All this talk about this bill is silly. One Senato...

2008-06-21T14:37:00.000-04:00

All this talk about this bill is silly. One Senator (Obama) or one representative is not going to rewrite the bill themselves. The Democratic leadership is at fault here for giving in. Democrats cannot be made vulnerable in an election year to Republican attacks of being "soft on terrorism". It's sad but a valid truth.

Obama could have sunk this legislation months ago ...

2008-06-21T14:20:00.000-04:00

Obama could have sunk this legislation months ago by a simple phone call to Pelosi telling her he wanted the bill buried.

I think you vastly overestimate the power of a presidential candidate, and badly misread the political environment in Washington.

I also think liberals made a strategic error. The idea was not to get the phone companies to pay financial penalties -- or at least it shouldn't have been, because there isn't any financial penalty that would have mattered.

Liberals should have focused not so much on the telecom immunity aspect but on the underlying issue, which is the need for information about the surveillance. That's the real problem with the bill, but you wouldn't know it to listen to its opponents.

There are some simple, cogent arguments to make, but as usual, the liberals* who were against the bill buried them in words.

* I am NOT using the word "liberal" as an epithet here.

Interesting vote analysis. You might want to use ...

2008-06-21T14:15:00.000-04:00

Interesting vote analysis. You might want to use Keith Poole's data at UCSD, which predicts individual votes quite well.

They were probably already conservatives, and so they voted conservatively.

Nate said "This was certainly a political decision...

2008-06-21T14:10:00.000-04:00

Nate said "This was certainly a political decision on Obama's part -- but not necessarily one that had very much to do with his own electoral prospects."

Wrong. No matter what you think about this issue, any presidential candidate's decision with less than 6 months before Election Day has very much to with the person's electoral prospects. In this case, Obama can tell liberals "Pelosi was also for it" and needed to vote with it to moderate for the general, not to mention that he is perceived by the public as weaker on national security than McCain.

He may have had good, conscience-oriented reasons to support the bill in addition to electoral reasons, but clearly electoral factors also (or primarily) mattered. His radio silence on the bill until yesterday indicates it was political.

cugel said "NO WAY would the Congress pick a fight...

2008-06-21T14:05:00.000-04:00

cugel said "NO WAY would the Congress pick a fight with him or embarrass him over this issue during the election. They would also know that there would be no point in bringing it up if the leader of the party was opposed and willing to publicly oppose this."

Digby makes the exact same point: "I do know this: they would not have made this "compromise" and then brought this to the floor without his ok, and probably without his direction. He is the leader of the Democratic Party now, in the middle of a hotly contested presidential campaign. If he didn't come to them and say to get this thing done before the fall, then they came to him and asked his permission. That's just a fact. They aren't going to do anything he doesn't want them to do."

The more I think about this, the more I think Nate is wrong in hypothesizing that Obama had no choice but to come out in support of the legislation. Balkin's and Digby's arguments make much more sense.

Hey just had a quick question,Does the supertracke...

2008-06-21T14:01:00.000-04:00

Hey just had a quick question,
Does the supertracker poll take into account the Gallup tracker, because I cannot see the Obama +2 points for the previous two days on that chart.

Is there a post explaining how the supertracker is calculated?

Thanks all

I wonder what you guys think about the new Newswee...

2008-06-21T13:56:00.000-04:00

I wonder what you guys think about the new Newsweek poll that Obama ahead by 15%. I'd love to think that it's right but it doesn't seem possible that all the other polls are off by that much.

Oops! The link was cut off. The article: "Why Obam...

2008-06-21T13:23:00.000-04:00

Oops! The link was cut off. The article: "Why Obama Kinda Likes FISA Bill But He won't Admit It:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-obama-kinda-likes-fisa-bill-but-he.html

This site also has an in depth analysis of the legal provisions of the bill that makes it comprehensible to lay persons about why this is so bad.