The blogosphere has been going crazy all day at Obama’s apparent support of the FISA bill that just passed the house. While Obama says he’ll “try” to remove the immunity provisions for the telephone companies who provided the government illegal access to our phone calls, emails, and other electronic communications, others say he should focus on the othe provisions of the bill, which take away our right to privacy.
They want Obama’s head on a platter. And if they’re not careful, they’re going to get it.
People who do what we are asking of Obama have been killed. Over and over.
Those who did the noble, right thing, who challenged big money head on, who protested war and took steps to end it, have paid a heavy price. President John Kennedy. Senator Bob Kennedy. Martin Luther King.
Obama is not naive. He knows what the stakes are. A part of me is mad at him for not trying harder, but another part is hearing him say to himself, “but when I’m president, things will be different.”
I’d argue the voice in his head is wrong. Because it’s what you do in a crisis that defines who you are. And our country is facing a constitutional crisis. We need giants, but have only some men and women on the hill, more interested in protecting their own careers than in fighting the epic battle that needs to be waged. But I also feel sorry for him.
He aspires to be someone great. But so far, he is only a man, not a giant.
Obama can’t do this alone. We need to help. And so far, most people not on liberal blogs aren’t even aware of this battle. And even some who ARE aware think immunity is okay. We feel we are the core of the party, but we are not. There are many in the party who believe that immunity IS the right thing. I am not of that persuasion.
I sometimes wonder if we’re just going to have to go through fascism to truly understand it’s danger, the insidiousness of it all. Will we have to suffer a holocaust of our own – not Jews, this time, but perhaps liberals, or maybe Muslims – to understand why we can’t give away our rights in this fashion? Ask a German. They have incredibly strict laws (or had, prior to the EU) preventing the collection of personal data because THEY KNOW how dangerous the accumulation of such data can be.
This is OUR fight. This has ALWAYS been OUR fight.
Over and over, whenever the government has overstepped, WE have failed to reign it in. When Nixon overstepped, he was forced from office. But when the CIA overstepped, performing illegal domestic activities – spying on Americans right here at home, infiltrating student groups and peace movements – Congress failed to serve up an appropriate remedy. Cowed by the death of a CIA station chief they claimed had been exposed by the incessant prying atmosphere (when they weren’t prying nearly hard enough), Frank Church, perhaps due to his own presidential ambitions, refused to push for accountability, and allowed the laws to be opened up, to give the CIA greater leeway to commit what previously had been an egregious breach of the law.
WE failed by not protesting this in the streets, by rolling over and going back to sleep. By pretending that didn’t mean anything. It set a dangerous precedent.
During Iran-Contra, when Robert Parry made the cover of Newsweek with an article that demonstrated how Reagan’s aids were rewriting chronologies to hide his hand in the deal, did Congress rise up and impeach Reagan? No. Newsweek pulled that issue from the stands! As the title of a wonderful little play cries, everything was “in the hands of its enemy.”
What did WE do? Nothing. There was no outrage, outside a few tiny groups of people paying attention.
I submit we, WE, us, the people blogging here, have not done OUR part.
How many of us have pressed for the truth about the deaths of those who WERE brave, who DID stand up against huge forces and do battle?
WE didn’t have their back. WE didn’t do our part.
So we can rant and rave all we want. But WE are a big part of the problem.
I’m trying to do my part. I’ve done a lot of homework. I’ve been very vocal about who I think the killed our best leaders and why. I speak out loudly and often on the subject because I believe doing so helps protect future leaders. But it will take much more than a handful of researchers. It will take an entire country saying no more lies. No more unelected goverment. No more domestic spying. No more cover-ups for political assassinations.
If the price may be an assassination for which no one will be held accountable, is it too much to ask Obama to do the right thing?
Do WE have his back?
Are we truly going to take to the streets and hold our elected leaders accountable? No one else will do it. This is still a government of the people, and by the people, if not often FOR the people. And WE have shirked our duties.
This is on us as much as him. Because so long as we’re only talking to each other, we’re not changing things.
We need to spend more time talking to people who AREN’T on left-wing blogs. Reaching NEW audiences. Commenting on sites where right-wing libertarian-type allies may see it. Then we may build enough awareness to truly have Obama’s back, and the back of anyone trying to do good.
I was sorry to see all the vitriol re Ron Paul. He wasn’t going to win, so his more extreme views didn’t bother me. Those weren’t why people were supporting him. They supported him because he said government is corrupt and broken. and he was dead on re the need to reform our money system.
When we shut our ears and go “La-la-la can’t HEAR you because you’re a Republican,” we’re missing some chances to build bridges and forge even more powerful coalitions.
We need to listen to the arguments of others, if only to better refute them. But we should listen with an ear to learning, and perhaps reaching a point of agreement in a surprising place.
And we need to teach each other history, and specifically, conspiratorial history. Conspiracy theory is simply pattern recognition. But you can’t recognize the patterns if you don’t know what they look like. The only way to prevent a conspiracy from happening is to expose it before it happens. The only way to expose it is to recognize the signs. And the only way to recognize the signs is to study conspiracies. We can’t prevent large-scale corruption until we gain some conspiracy literacy.
I believe strongly the many voices crying out re Iran have prevented us, so far, from creating a fake event that would drag us into war.
By not being willing to deal with the weirdnesses around 9/11, we have shirked our duty. We don’t want to be associated with the truly paranoid people who surround that case, but there are deeper issues that have nothing to do with planes and buildings we should be pursuing, specifically, where did the money come from to pay the hijackers? It went from the ISI, the CIA-trained intelligence service in Pakistan, to the hijackers. Who gave the money to ISI? And isn’t that worth finding out? If we shriek “conspiracy loonatics” every time the subject comes up, we can’t find out. And if we can’t find out, we can’t prevent future attacks.
So yeah, we can claim to be holier than thou – but really, what are WE doing?
How can Obama or anyone stand up to such enormous power when the costs to his predecessors have been so very high? The only way he’d dare is if we bring him right up to the goal line.
Re illegal wiretapping, this IS a big deal. This is THE big deal of our collective rights, so far. And those who get it are working hard on this. Many more don’t have a clue. And it’s going to take so many more to win this one.
It’s going to take something more along the lines of a general strike to shake the business community to its knees. And that’s the positive option. The negative option is that we have to suffer a period similar to that in Nazi Germany to wake people up, to make them realize politics is as important as life itself. Most people in America find politics boring, something removed, something they don’t have to participate in. But most people in Germany of my generation and earlier understand that not paying attention can have truly disastrous results.
So stop whining about Obama. Press him. Support him. Push him to do the right thing. But understand as well that he’s all we’ve got. No one else is coming.
And most importantly, remember this surprisingly sage advice from Michael Jackson’s song “Man in the Mirror”:
take a look at yourself and make a change.
The average America is high on expectation but low on participation. We expect things to be done for us, not necessarily by us. When you think about it, the idea of a suicide bomber is totally foreign to us because there is nothing – absolutely nothing – that the average American sees as being more important than themselves, nothing that is important enough for them to sacrifice their life in order to see that greater-good achieved. We’re a high-expectation, low-commitment people, and the difference between our expectations and our commitment is the area where we can be, and often are, exploited. That’s the area where people can appeal to our expectations without ever worrying about delivering the goods because our commitment to seeing it through is lacking. “We gave it the old college try; we’ll get ’em next year.”
Now, I’m not suggesting that we all suit up in suicide bomb vests and go have a conversation with our duly-elected leaders, but I am suggesting that until we are ready to fight for what we believe in – fight, not type – we will consistently find ourselves with rug burns on our foreheads. A blast from the past:
Taxation without representation was their last straw; what, if anything, will be ours?
You get it, Oscar. This is exactly the point. And the key phrase above is this:
These bills are thousands of pages long, often. In this case, there will be a bill. It’s important to get the best compromise possible.
It’s like the endless “angels on a pin” arguments about Obama’s health care plan vs. Clinton’s. We don’t live in a dictatorship. Everything must be negotiated. If he can get the immunity clause out in the Senate, he holds the key to future investigations. that’s all we can expect.
Actually, most bills are within a couple hundred pages, have large margins, and are double spaced. So it’s not all that much to read. I looked at an earlier version of this bill and it was around 157 pages. You could knock that off in a couple of hours or less, even if you’re a slow reader.
See – that’s the assumption. It’s too much work. It’s not! And if we see, as we’re seeing, that are elected reps aren’t doing a good job reading these and evaluating them, it falls to us to vet them.
It may well be this is the best possible compromise at this time. But I won’t stop pressing him on this until it’s a done deal. Then, I will know I, at least, did all I could. There’s no point in throwing in the towel before this is over.
Even if it is a thousand pages, we hired them to read those thousand pages and to act according to what they’ve read in those thousand pages. They have a budget of $500k or so for staff, and if they can’t get it done by themselves then they have staff to help them. If they still can’t do what they were hired to do then they ought to be fired, just like any of us who fail at the jobs that we were hired to do.
The staff does read the bills. But does it go to the young person who doesn’t have enough context to tell which parts to flag?
And I’m certain the CIA puts some of its own people in key Congressional offices, through their network of contacts, many of whom don’t realize they’re talking to the CIA.
I once worked for a short time for a company that had absolutely nothing to do with intelligence gathering – we simply trained people how to use computers. I found out my boss was CIA because someone inadvertently let it slip in front of me. He was livid at the exposure. I’ve never named him, but I was amazed to see a CIA guy even in such a mundane enterprise. It appeared several people I worked with were also CIA, and one admitted to being “former” NSA. Weird place.
Btw – the NSA guy said he’d heard from colleagues that the NSA fielded its own hit teams. That was interesting to me, because in the sixties the area of the CIA that for years handled liaison with the NSA was Staff D, the coup plotting unit.
I’m suggesting that the nuances of hundreds of provisions are difficult. A bill may have many provisions that are reasonable, better than now. Some of the provisions may be worse. There’s almost never a “clean” bill with all one perspective.
In this case, there are some improvements over the status quo. There is also some reason for Obama to demonstrate that he can work across the aisle. But there’s NO reason for telecom immunity. So he says he generally supports the compromise but rejects immunity. Is that bad? I guess, it’s debatable.
In this case, there are some improvements over the status quo.
no it isn’t, with no deal we go back to the old FISA system that served us well for decades.
Telecom immunity isn’t the only bad thing in this bill. Read Greenwald’s article, it is a really really really dangerous legislation.
Exactly, Alice.
Not quite. The Obama v. Clinton debate was over proposed systems that would inevitably come out of the legislative process identical. This debate is over the end result of the legislative process. It’s the difference between theory and reality – two entirely different critters.
Observation:
we’ve been under warrantless surveillance for over 30 years; back to the era of telex communication now replaced by faxes, phone calls, mail and in the last 15 years, our emails. A well kept secret until after 9/11.
Obama needs to counter the GOP definition of him having a 9/10 mindset.
That said, we elected several dozens chickens to Congress.
I hate to tell you – but it goes back a lot longer than that. As BooMan suggested to Steny Hoyer recently, re volume 4 of the Church Committee report – it’s about the CIA’s mail opening program which dates back to the very early days. That’s some 50 years of surveillance. And on more limited terms, it goes back further still.
notice I wrote for over 30-years The Telex era was pre-60s. Surveillance is not new or made up only after 9/11
So precedents have been set in place and grandfathered We can only rage now that companies participated illegally. Qwest refused.
This president took things a step further and the Democrats caved giving even more powers than he wanted.
This is a bad law granting retroactively immunity for illegal acts.
Difficult to roll back precedents.
So we’ll see how we deal with other illegal acts, criminals running to have immunity.
Glenn Greenwald, a repost
Thanks to the Dems:
“The White House got a better deal than even they had hoped to get.” The administration should know better by now than to underestimate the Democratic leadership’s complete cravenness and eagerness to please the White House.”
And the president of Qwest who said no is in prison now. Coincidence?
nacchio isn’t in prison. he’s bonded out awaiting a new trial that was ordered by the 10th circuit.
they’re going to do it over.
Joyful’s point stands, though, and is important.
Greewald: Obama’s support for the FISA “compromise”
Obama is responsible for the fact that he is violating his oath of office to uphold the constitution.
Well, he has taught constitutional law. I’m hoping he has a better plan up his sleeve. I want to see what he does next re this. The opening salvo was hardly inspiring.
Lisa,
amen. I have been saying that, since you have this pathetic two party system (being originally from Holland, I’m all for multi parties), it is very tricky for politicians to ‘take a stand’ AND to know ‘when’ to take a stand. Not enough critical mass of people care about FISA no matter how bad or wrong it is. How many people STILL do not care about Gitmo and the continued torture? As you said, the voters, the American people need to make it an issue. If a politician takes a stand AND loses his, or the next election (presidency or whatever office), then ‘the other’ party can take over. This system sucks. It does not allow for politicians to vote according to their conscious, and voters seem to feel that they have to keep voting for one or the other candidate because otherwise.. ‘the OTHER’ one wins.. ping pong ping pong.
I put the blame on that solely at the feet of the apathetic masses AND the ones who are not but who are to afraid to fix the problem(s). Just because they are afraid to lose power. So..don’t complain, I have no sympathy for anyone who’s now so bitterly disappointed..
sorry, but it’s easy to bellyache on the sidelines of the blogosphere where people really do not even know your name..
BE THE CHANGE..until then, stop complaining that your knight in shining armour doesn’t bring you flowers everyday after all..
Ingrid
Amen, Ingrid.
I am not crazy about a two party system, but I don’t see a good way to break out of it without overhauling the entire thing top to bottom, which isn’t a horrible idea, but which also won’t happen without an extraordinary event.
I agree with you Lisa. I was mulling it over tonight and since it would take waaay too much political will to even TRY to change it (and considering that the voters have the political will of gnat, yes, I’m saying voters not politicians), I was thinking that voters need to be more realistic. So they set all their hopes to the extreme on Obama being this or that and the other, forgetting, or WANTING to forget that he still needs to be politically savvy and diplomatic.. when you run in circles where most people always agree, then you lose sight of how others (read, voters you’d want to vote for your candidate) perceive issues or behave as voters. You still will need their votes..
Ingrid
great attention and spin on this as so many people have been ‘bitterly disappointed’ and what not. Me? I have had no sympathy for them. In a very Dutch way ([g]) I agree to disagree…vehemently!
Danke for the Dutchiness! 😉
Obama is supporting FISA because opposing it might get him killed?
Did he flip-flop on campaign finance reform for the same reason?
Does he now wear flag lapel pins for the same reason?
Does he now say “May God continue to bless the United States of America” for the same reason?
Sometime perhaps you’ll wake up to the fact that Obama is now running a Clintonian campaign based on triangulation.