BlogHer - Obama compromise on FISA worries some supporters - Comments

I can't decide

Laracolvin — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:49:53 -0500

You know, I buy what he says about how the bill is better than it was and how the necessity of effective intelligence tools is too important to delay, and to some degree I understand how long and cumbersome the process would be to take it back to the table. It's this part that bothers me the most, I think:

"So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as
President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by
the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any
additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the
liberty - of the American people"

Because what if he loses the election? What happens then? I don't want to think that is going to happen, but I didn't think Gore would end up where he is either. Sure, Obama can work hard in the Senate to oppose and rid the bill of the retroactive immunity, but I worry about the others in Congress. If McCain is in, I think there is a chance our gov't will act in even more heinous ways in regards to civil liberties. I get too much of an angry man vibe from him for me to think otherwise. So Obama supporting a bill on the premise that he will oversee it if he gets in is a little scary for me to consider.

But then, in contrast, there is the part of me that thinks ok, some progress is better than nothing. Sometimes politicians have to work from the inside to change things, and maybe this is one of these times.

But I just don't know!

Your post was informative, but it didn't really say how you felt, Professor Kim. What do you think?

Lara

Notions of Identity

This echoes the statement that upset progressive bloggers

Kim Pearson — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:09:41 -0500

Critics say that the bill that Obama is endorsing is not as different from the Protect America Act as he claims it is. Do you buy his explanation, or do you think he is pandering to conservatives?

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Just received this from Obama's campaign

Laracolvin — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:47:39 -0500

I just received this statement from Obama's campaign:

Statement of Senator Barack Obama on FISA Compromise:

Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

After months of negotiation, the House passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance - making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took
place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people.

----------------------
Paid for by Obama for America

Notions of Identity

I'm concerned

Laracolvin — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 13:38:48 -0500

I echo many of the concerns in your article, Prof Kim. I've written to him via his campaign and will follow up with his Senate office. I encourage anyone who has concerns to express them and communicate with his aides and campaign office. It isn't enough to read about and discuss it...we have to act on our concerns!

Notions of Identity

I'm not an Obama supporter

earlgreyrooibos — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:29:06 -0500

I'm not an Obama supporter (for the record, I am not a McCain supporter either), but if I was, this might have cost him my vote. The FISA issue is extremely important to me; I don't think telecoms should have immunity. Had I been an Obama supporter, his stance on the immunity problem would have pushed me to vote for a 3rd-party candidate (which I'm doing anyway).

This is What a Feminist Blogs Like

Not just Obama...

nelle2nelle — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 06:21:18 -0500

there are two things this Congress has not shown the courage to do - stand up to the president on FISA and on war funding.

With FISA, Democrats are so afraid that another successful attack in this country will then be attached to the lack of a full blown spy regimen, they caved on the issue. Selling out our ideals and our freedom for some abstract illusion of safety is foolhardy and reckless.

nelle

Obama compromise on FISA worries some supporters

Kim Pearson — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:40:01 -0500

Last week, the US House of Representatives passed a "compromise" version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that gives the President additional authority to conduct surveillance on American citizens while providing immunity to telecommunications companies that have cooperated with previous Bush administration warrantless surveillance efforts. The bill goes to the Senate for a vote this week. Sen. Barack Obama shocked some of his supporters Friday by announcing his intention to vote for it, although he has promised to try to kill the telecom immunity provision.

FISA, which was originally enacted in 1978, provides special confidential courts that law enforcement officials can use to get warrants to conduct surveillance related to national security matters. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration erected a warrantless surveillance program as part of its Global War on Terrror. When the New York Times exposed the program in 2005, the Bush administration argued that the existing law impeded law enforcement officials' efforts to combat terrorism. After a federal judge ruled the Administration's program unconstitutional, Congress passed a new version of the FISA law that made the Administration's program legal. The "compromise" legislation now before the Senate would extend the government's surveillance powers after the current law expires in August.

Blogger Marcy Wheeler said that Obama's statement was a reponse to an open letter she wrote to to the presumptive Democratic nominee detailing the ways in which the proposed law is both unnecessary and unconstitutional:

The "political branches" are attempting to limit court review of wiretaps on Americans to a procedural review in three ways:

The Court can only certify that the current Attorney General
has claimed the warrantless wiretap program was legal; it cannot assess
the representations to the telecoms, nor review the legality of the
underlying program.

The Court can only approve the procedures planned in a given
wiretap program, it cannot review whether the actual program is legal.

The Court can only review proposed minimization procedures intended
to protect US persons' data; it cannot review whether the
Administration is actually following its own minimization procedures.

Wheeler found Obama's response that he would support the new bill unsatisfying to say the least.

Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings is more concerned that readers understand why FISA is so important:

If the FISA "compromise" passes, it will mean that a President just needs to authorize some program, and say that he thinks it is legal, and telecoms cannot be sued for going along with it, even if it violates the law.
Given a President who claims to believe, as Bush does, that whatever he
wants to do is legal so long as it is an exercise of his War Powers,
this is a recipe for disaster.

Digby is also sounding the alarm :

The FISA controversy is just one more example of this assault on the
constitution.

Amanda Simon at the ACLU blog dismisses the propsed law in no uncertain terms:

So, House Majority Leader
Steny Hoyer
announced his precious FISA
deal today and I’m sure it
will not come as great
shock to this general audience that we at the ACLU think it’s
crap. And by “crap” I mean unconstitutional.

The editors of the New York Times were hoping that Sen. Obama would reject the bill, just at he had voted down an earlier version of the law, the Protect America Act:

The bill is not a compromise. The final details are being worked out,
but all indications are that many of its provisions are both
unnecessary and a threat to the Bill of Rights.

Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff recently opined that the next President of the US needs to make the protection of America's civil liberties a high priority in order to save our democracy:

The next president, to restore the Constitution and shred the Bush
legacy of shadow law—and, in the process, repair our deeply scarred
reputation in the world—must begin to root out the inner machinery of
Bush's parallel government.