Obama has responded to the 18,000 members of his site that asked him to vote against the FISA bill. I’ll do an analytical piece when I get the chance, but right now I am going to just underline the bullshit and boldface the encouraging stuff.
I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.
This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn’t have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush’s abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush Administration’s program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That’s why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.
But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I’ve said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.
The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I’m persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe — particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I’ve chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention — once I’m sworn in as President — to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.
Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I’m happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples’ attention on the abuses of executive power in this Administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true — not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.
I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I’m not exempt from that. I’m certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as President of the United States — a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples’ business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country’s destiny.
Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That’s ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.
So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.
It will probably be Attorney General Joe Leiberman doing that thorough review. Sigh. Might as well see Glenn Greenwald carve him a new one…
One more thing: all that consultation with Jeff and Chris doesn’t mean smack without the filibuster. The republicans, evil as they are, will fight tooth and nail for business interests. They use the filibuster so much I’ve lost count. And they do it because they represent evil and they believe in evil. The least good for the least in number is their mantra. Meanwhile, the dems reflect the old Richard Hofstadter argument in that the GOP appears more authentic because they really openly represent evil, where dems cave and mess around and flippity flop and in true Clintonian style usually end up supporting evil too. The Dems have become a business party that only pretends to give a fuck about the “common” people. It’s also why the public sees them as vacillating and weak. Deservedly so I might add.
Here’s a great opportunity for the dems to show their spine on one issue. Hard to see other issues they’re showing spine on. And you think when we have 61 or 95 dems that would change with the current leadership? 39 Republicans and handful of dems will continue to do the devils work. It will the mich sens and Mary when real alt fuel and cafe standards are proposed. Insurance companies will put the lock on Chris when the overall Obama plan fails and the plan b medicaid for everyone option is floated. They’ll get our guy bob casey and those awful southern dem senators on the social issues stuff…
One final thing: a very wise man, Nathan Newman, said that the dems should have used the fillibuster when they were in the minority and gladly let the republican majority strip it from them. Now that looks pretty good. But what happened is that DLC/AIPAC duopoly essentially preserved the right of the fillibuster for the republicans to use in case some wacko decided to try and pass a bill that would help the public…I’m not mad at anybody I intend to vote for Barry but this is the reality. No substantive change in our lives will come from this government. There’s other things that can be done though…one or two of them anyway. Hope space exploration makes a singularity like leap and I’m off to Mars. I hear the soil is good for asparagus..
A judge just determined that “no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court.” Now it’s just a matter of having the courage to confront the administration on just that. Some thoughts along those lines over here.
God, I hope this motherfucker’s got a Secret Plan…
In the meantime, pass me that merlot…
I can’t beat your response.
“The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any President or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court.”
I got the same line from Patrick Murphy’s office. Every time I hear it, it pisses me off. The original 1978 FISA bill has an exclusivity provision, which the Bush administration just ignored. How is this any better? (I know the answer… it isn’t.)
I mean, if there are democrats out there who think that security needs trump the 4th amendment in this case, then say that. But don’t tell me something that is clearly not true. Contrary to what Murphy, Hoyer, and (apparently) Obama believe, I am actually not an idiot.
I’m going to go back and actually read this post but, right off the bat I’ll ask: Have you ever found a pearl in a pile of bullshit?
I know I haven’t.
But, whatever.
If we don’t stop this now, it will not get stopped.
I do so with the firm intention — once I’m sworn in as President —
What the fuck is that shit?
I posted a comment/question in the thread at the Obama site where they are supposed to have 3 of his advisers working to answer the questions. No response yet. Her’s my comment:
Actually, Bush will probably immunize everyone before he leaves. So that option would be off the table as well.
Maybe and maybe not. Bush has a legacy to protect and that would be an admission of guilt. But that’s not my point.
I want them to commit to making all findings from any investigations public, even if they are politically damaging. Just getting the facts out in the open will embarrass those who deserve it and end the conspiracy theories, hopefully. If any prosecutions are possible, that’s nice as well. Additionally, getting the facts out will likely also be what’s needed to actually tighten the standards used in the program and create or enhance other privacy protections.
You believe that he will not grant blanket pardons due to his legacy?
Are you on drugs or something? That’s simply ridiculous.
He will pardon Libby. He will pardon several Republican representatives. he will pardon the several blackwater murderers
He will beat by several factors the number of pardons ever given by any president. And they will all be political.
The most important issue: can a pardon be offered BEFORE a person is indicted? what is the statute of limitations on various issues?
He may well pardon people and that’s a stain on his legacy if he does. There’s nothing that any legislation can do to prevent him from doing it. And yes, it is possible for him to pardon anyone for anything before it’s even investigated or charges filed. Some people think that just because Nixon didn’t pardon himself and his whole gang of criminals, that a president can’t do it. Nixon could have but he wanted Ford to do it after the fact, hoping it would do less harm to his legacy and he got a commitment from Ford before quitting office.
If McCain wins, he’ll probably make the same commitment to Bush. That’s why we can’t let McCain win.
Worry about the legacy of the worst president in history?
I don’t worry about it, but Bush does. In fact, that’s ALL that he seems to worry about anymore.
I was refering to Bush, of course.
I’m still sprouting my pin feathers. This statement needs to be re-read and digested.
It’s artful, maybe taking into account the new federal judge’s ruling.
He doesn’t mind that it’s a deal breaker since politicians are creatures of compromises.
…translation – “Going into the election campaign, I can’t be seen to be weak, to cave to any interest group on any issue.”
…translation:“Honey I have a girlfriend but I’m still married to you and I’ll be home every night”
Froggies, there’s something to celebrate: It’s been a long time since the Democratic Party has had such a shrewd, ruthless standard bearer.
And, you gotta give Obama credit. How many candidates would allow their campaign’s website to be used to challenge policy positions
but as I said, I’m still sprouting my pin feathers.
Here’s my deal breaker memo to Obama: There’s no compromise to be made on civil liberties. The FISA bill amends the Constitution through the back door. This is not France or Canada.
Get your ass on the Senate floor and mount a solid effort to strike Title ll from the bill. Do some filibustering…even if you fail, you’ll be seen to have tried.
Not only that, but talk is, O’bama is talking about expanding George W. Bush’s “faith-based initiatives”. (Oooh, I wonder what that means!)
What’s wrong with being Muslim in America, anyway?
Unless you’re pandering to Bush’s Base.
Pee-Yoo!
Shorter Obama: “I’ll willingly punch holes in the ship of state, as I’m convinced that, once elected, I’ll be able to bail fast enough to keep it afloat — unless it sinks in the meantime.”
I’m disturbed by the number of troll-like comments in this thread. This isn’t a deal breaker for me, and I think our pressure is going to make him work all the hard to remove the immunity provisions. I hope so, in any case.
But we do need to keep the pressure up on ALL our elected officials. And we need to reach out to the right wing – this is one of those issues that isn’t liberal or conservative – this is about American freedoms at stake!!
“troll-like” comments? where? l don’t see anything here but righteous indignation that the presumptive nominee of the demoRATic party has pretty much turned his back on the progressives that have helped him achieve success, with a “thanks for your input, but fuck you very much” response.
get a grip, his position on this is wrong, and you don’t have to look very hard to find the reasons.
you can, and should, be royally pissed at pelosi and hoyer for allowing it to come to the floor in the house, and subsequently brought to the floor in the senate. you can rail against reid and schumer for the same damn thing in the senate, but it’s there, and it’s going to be voted on, and it’s going to pass, essentially intact. the amendments such as dodd/fringold have a snow balls chance in hell of gettingt 51 votes…or 60 votes to prevent cloture. lberman, feinstein, salazar, and a host of others on the dRAT side aren’t going to vote against it, and you can bet your rent money that the RATs are going to be solidly behind it… it’s a fait accompli.
the sad part of it is he’s alienating people for no reason.
this is huge failure to act and demonstrate the kind of leadership he’s talked about throughout his campaign for a calculated political gain. based on the old cw of tracking to the right so’s not to loose the middle. fyi, the only thing in the middle [of the road] aredead skunks and armadillos.
it is a travesty of a bill, and it is a glaring example of what l fear we can expect from an obama presidency.
sorry if you don’t agree, but my 4th amendment rights are not negotiable, nor are they subject to hoping for a change.
l ain’t a believer.
as AG says, wake the fuck up! you just got screwed, and you didn’t even get a kiss.
l’m tired of this shit.
l’m outta here.
later
Except when it doesn’t, keep us safe that is. Given recent history, exactly how vital is that tool? Hmm.