Obama On FISA: Security Trumps Suing Phone Companies

In a press conference on Wednesday, Sen. Barack Obama explained his support for a compromise on FISA legislation, saying that concerns over American security trumped, at this point in time, objections over immunity for telecommunications that participated in the previously illegal program.

"The bill has changed but I don't think the security threats have changed. I think the security threats are similar," said the Illinois Democrat. "My view on FISA has always been that the issue of the phone companies per se is not one that overrides the security interests of the American people. I do want accountability, and making sure, as I've said before, someone is watching the watchers, that you don't have an administration that feels that it can make its own determinations about when warrantless wiretaps are applicable without going through a FISA court and that's what we had."

Obama's support for the compromise legislation, which includes a sweeping overhaul of the nation's electronic surveillance laws and grants conditional immunity for telecommunications companies who participated in the previous program, has effectively cast him against prominent members of his own political party. The House of Representatives passed the legislation this week with the majority of Democrats voting nay. The Senate, late Wednesday, voted to end debate on the measure, which could pass that body as early as Thursday. Only 15 Senators voted against cloture.

For Obama, however, the trickier aspect of this debate is explaining why, during the Democratic primary, he promised to defeat any FISA compromise that included telecom immunity and now, in the general, he is seemingly hedging on that pledge. The Senator, in a previous statement, said he would work to remove such a provision from the bill and offered to support an amendment doing just that. On Wednesday, he elaborated on that statement.

"It is a close call for me, but I think that the current legislation with the exclusivity provision that says that a president, whether it's George Bush or myself or John McCain, can't make up rationales for getting around the FISA court, can't suggest that somehow there's some law that stands above the laws passed by Congress in engaging in warrantless wiretaps. The fact that that provision is in there I think is very important and provides us protection going forward. The fact that that provision is in there I think is very important and provides us protection going forward."

His remarks may not be enough to placate Democrats invested in the fight. For this faction, the issue of immunity remains one of constitutional limitations -- as in, citizens, organizations and others should have the right to sue the government over illegal electronic surveillance. Obama, however, is framing immunity as a sticking point to a much more important legislative objective: putting in place a legal security apparatus. And thus, for critics, his support for the new FISA compromise seems more about demonstrating national security toughness than righting past wrongs.

Comments

[Sabreen60]

Do not be fooled by all the Tr0lls. The old tactic of divide and conquer is alive and well on this board.

[tbone99]

How about the troll who ran as a Dem until he got the nomination ?

[Sabreen60]

You have never been a real supporter so your backstabbing is not unexpected.

[2lib4oh]

Check out a blog on DailyKos written by a defense attorney who explains what this is really about.Its called ,"A Pragmatic View of FISA".

She explains the nuts and bolts of the FISA bill and how this really won't do anything to change anything.

Its a ruse, folks.

[Slagfish]

I am disappointed not only with Obama but the democrat party as a whole. I will still vote for him but will do so unenthusiastically, expecting nothing more than his continually rolling over for corporate America at the expense of the people and the constitution.

[conservicide]

I CANNOT in good conscience,
vote for someone who will not hold criminals
accountable for violating our civil rights.
My money is going to ACT BLUE

where they work to replace the democratic candidates that have
sold their souls to the telecoms
with candidates with a bit more integrity and principle.

[EdCoughlin]

Same here, all the money I donate for the rest of the general is going to independent candidates or the house and senate in competitive races, I have no interest in giving any more money to Obama after he sold the Constitution down the river.

[rzan1]

I was just banned, but now, a few minutes later, am not banned. I don't get it. Sorry to be off topic.

[mexamerican]

it's incredibly annoying. the same thing has happened to me. there's no rationale, no explanation, no accountability. huffpost needs to chill.

[tommybones]

me too.

[Trollstakeyourmeds]

Nice to know it's not just me.

[ebanks84]

I believe him and can understand what he's saying. I think Bush will not be able to do what he did in the past because everybody and their mothers will be looking at everything he does from this point on. So it doesn't worry me going forward. It does worry me, however, that past illegalities cannot be advanced upon and I'm sure some big past wrongs will surface in the near future.

[jrterrier]

wait, isn't this the fear mongering that huff has her eye out for? or does obama get a bye on anything and everything?

[Trollstakeyourmeds]

If you've been on this site for any length of time, you would have known that, yes, he does get a bye on anything and everything.

[Truthfighter1]

You guys are going after the wrong folks here, Telecomm companies, I believe, were forced to do what the Government ask them to do in these War Times, if you want to Sue somebody go for Bush and his cronies. Suing the Companies will only cause a Monopoly as alot of the Comapanies will be shut down and our Phone bills we be thru the roof because theirs no competition.

Some of you got tricked into the media trying to paint him as some over the top Liberal, the only person that is going to define Obama is Obama. He is a pragmatic thinker, a wise and intelligent man, he knows what he's doing, just sit back and enjoy the ride to the White House then let him go to work. I believe he has somethng in store for some of those who got us into this mess, their will be questions to answer and a price to pay.

[ProfessorDuh]

I'm tried of waiting for someone to stop surrendering to fascism. This means that telecom companies will continue to spy on Americans for the government, without oversight, from now on. The immunity sellout signals to the companies that any purported legal "oversight" is just a sly wink, mere propaganda to fool the Americans being spied upon. The problem is that politicians necessarily like power a lot, and the prospect of secretly spying on their enemies and "friends" is a temptation for all of them.

[Changeling]

This "war" is nebulous and endless.

The "War" on Terrorism.

- Crime
- Drugs
-Poverty

How many freedoms have we let slide for those wars?

As for phone bills....Good God, waaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy too many of you people are too worried about your wallets. "I'll surrender fredom for cash? Really?"

And for a few bucks off your bill...you're a pretty cheap date. At that penny ante rate, how much for your freedom of speech or due process? $5K or less?

I'm sure Bush would be interested in buying.

[bygollymissmolly]

I disagree with you totally. The telcoms were not "forced" to do anything. They willingly went along with what Bush wanted because it enriched them greatly. They made a lot of money and are still making a lot of money off of illegally spying on us.

On the other hand, look at the precedent they are setting. They are basically saying that if your government tells you to do it, it's ok, they will cover for you. That's not a problem when you have a President who has some sense of right and wrong. But when you have a President who doesn't, it has opened up Pandora's box.

[tbone99]

They were not forced - they were BRIBED with financial incentives and gov'nt contracts.

[EdCoughlin]

As proof of that, the wiretaps stopped not coincidentally right after the government stopped paying on time. That is not a gun at the head forced capitulation, thats pure unabashed greed where they were willing to sell our basic freedoms down the river for a few pieces of silver.

[mom2sons]

Have faith that he knows what he's doing. Obama 08 and I will send another donation.

[buckygreen]

I'm not into faith, I believe in action. My money is going to the ACLU and Act Blue from now on. I cannot in good conscience donate my time and money to a candidate who cannot or will not stand on principle and defend the Constitution.

[tbone99]

Encore - I will look up ACT BLUE

[tommybones]

amen, bucky.

[bygollymissmolly]

Yes, he knows that he is abandoning his base. This may prove to be his fatal mistake because many in his netroot supporters are angry enough to withdraw their financial support. Now that he has rejected public financing, he needs those 1.5 million netroot supporters to continue to support him financially. That 1.5 million is less one person since I have canceled my monthly contribution. I suspect that I am not alone.

[Trollstakeyourmeds]

There was a bit on NPR this morning that said McCain was only behind him in fund raising by a minimal amount. Obama's sources are drying up, and McCain's are picking up. As Obama continues to turn his back on the ones that "brung him there", he is having to turn more and more to large corporate donors and bundlers. Same as Clinton. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[tbone99]

Faith does not belong in the political arena.

[JustSaying]

Obama On FISA: Security Trumps Suing Phone Companies

That sounds fine and dandy, but this wasn't really about that. It is a cover up of labush crimes.

[geg6]

Extremely, extremely disappointing. Not enough to make me sit out the election or vote for anyone else, but still a letdown.

This is the one thing he's done so far that really sticks in my throat. I hope it's the last and I still hold out hope that when he's running the show, he'll end it.

[mexamerican]

agreed. i've been a diehard supporter, but this decision gives me pause, i must admit.

[EdCoughlin]

Vote with your pocketbook and your time. Give him your vote in November but spend your time supporting other democrats in tough house and senate races with your time and money, candidates which won't gut the constitution and bow to conservative interests. Expanding the majority in the senate so the dems don't need Lie-berman is a huge victory, who knows in 2010 the dems could even get to the magic 60/40 majority!

[tommybones]

The Pragmatist Chronicles:

2006 - "Don't rock the boat, progressives! We need to capture the House and Senate! Then you'll see some accountability!"

2008 - "Don't rock the boat, progressives! Stop demanding accountability! We need to capture the White House! Then you'll see some "change" and accountability!"

2010 - "Don't rock the boat, progressives! I know the Democratically controlled Congress AND White House have ignored your issues, but we need to focus on the mid-term elections! When we gain EVEN MORE seats, you'll see real progress!"

2012 - "Don't rock the boat, progressives! I know the democratically controlled Congress and White House have ignored your issues, but our priority MUST be about keeping the White House! Once we maintain the Executive and Legislative branches, then we can focus on real progress!"

And on and on and on.... SUCKERS.

[wayoutleft]

exactly right. unfortunately, we're at "all tactics vs all ideals"

[Brooklynindy]

Seconded, Tommybones. Enough is enough.

[dayala]

I believe Obama is going to feel a wave of wrath from his 1.5 million small donors that he never anticipated with his decision...he may need to take a second look at public financing.

he's not getting a penny out of me or my family after this debacle.

[2lib4oh]

Obama is a politician and he is politicing, folks. What do you expect? He is trying to gleen a few votes from the Republican side. I am not sure it will work.

This is not one of those "safe" issues that you can appear too liberal on.People take national security very serious today. Most voters do not think things out as much as liberals do. They react to the gut. Nuance killed Kerry in spite of how reasonable he sounded.

I think that overall Obama will try to do the right thing but that may not be what we think it is.

As far as the telecoms go, there are other ways for them to be held accountable.
Don't put all your chickens in one basket.

[OhMyGoodness]

Then I'll have to make sure that I step up in my giving and encourage others who have given in the past to do the same. I for one am more concerned about the economy and ending the war than I am about the telecoms and immunity. It does bother me a bit that he's changing his original position but not enough for me not to vote or contribute to his campaign.

[EdCoughlin]

Noone is saying don't vote for him, and the point is really not to contribute to democrats in the fall, of course you should contribute to democrats in the fall (especially for senate races since we don't want the majority to hinge on lie-berman anymore). Just contribute to candidates that keep their word and won't sell the constitution down the river for political expediency. More Reid less Pelosi.

[Sabreen60]

Since you are not a prophet, you really don't know this. Well I'll double my donation today. Since the wording of your comments imply that you're not a donor anyway, don't worry about it. I tired of you tr0lls. It's not going to work. Lets just see how much he pulls in for the months of May, June and July. No right thinking intelligent Dem will withhold his/her vote or their money. Get the money 0bama.

[rzan1]

I have also decided to double my donation.

[EdCoughlin]

There are other options for donation you know. I'm not saying sit the election out, far from it. Get involved in house races, senate races or even local races (state house/senate, mayor ect) and send your money there (where it will be far more appreciated anyway, none of those guys are pulling in 22 million). Why give the money to Obama when he clearly isn't interested in representing the Constitution or an increasing number of other interests he said he was for before the general? (just watch him talk about Israel these days for an example). There are other better democrats out there, find them and help them, Obama will probably win anyway.

[rzan1]

I hope you will reconsider. I personally think it's a waste of time to sue [phone companies retroactively. You have to know that Obama was bound to disappoint you sometime or other.. He is not perfect, and it is too bad that there are those who expect him to be. The very fact that he could be our next president is revolultionary and new. I will continue to support him. He is a brilliant man, and I trust he knows what he is doing.

[tommybones]

Shortsighted nonsense. Here's the problem (or one of them, at least); with impeachment "off the table," these lawsuits were the best chance (possibly the last chance) to actually gather information against the administration. See the problem? How do you propose we protect our civil liberties from future abuse if we do NOTHING in response to the current administrations flagrant and widespread lawbreaking?

[tbone99]

yes , on some issues I expected compromise but not the Constitution !

[truthsforsaken]

Think about it this way. If he was stubborn about this FISA compromise or worked to vote it down, he would only give the Repubs an easy "soft on terrorism" argument in the fall that most people could understand and relate to. I can see it now--pictures of the twin towers and then a picture of Obama with the title "soft on terrorism" underneath it.

The title really sums it up: "Security Trumps Suing Phone Companies"

In other words, he has the foresight to see that, although it was wrong for that wiretapping to happen, this is not worth going after for so many reasons. He even said he didn't agree with the immunity for telecoms. He's just looking at the bigger picture. The two party system is about compromise and that is exactly what he is doing here.

Don't get me wrong: I think the illegal wiretapping was an awful thing, but I still applaud Obama for having the foresight to pick his battles, unlike current administration who will fight anyone who looks at us.

(or has some money we can bully out of them)

[westreal]

If you are unsatisfied with Obama's "support me financially and I'll work for the people" message then contact him and complain about his vote.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2

Threaten to not vote for him and not pledge any more money!!! Don't just threaten. Stand by it. NO MORE MONEY DONATIONS TO OBAMA UNTIL HE STAND BY HIS PLEDGE TO WORK FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. NOT BIG BUSINESS!!!

[SanityClaus]

Thanks, I just gave more money to O. It was your use of the caps lock key that motivated me to contribute again.

[SpoxLogic]

To all who are now whining about Obama's stance:

How would you vote on this? Given that if you voted against it, the GOP would paint you as being soft on National Security and terrorism.
Do you realize how easy it is for the neocons to trot out some made up "terrorist plot" that was somehow "thwarted" by the new FISA bill. What do you think would happen to your aspirations for President.

Please not that there was only 36 million or so Democrats who voted in the Primary. In 2004, Bush won with 52 Million votes. Obama needs to get votes.

So suck it up, and get the man elected. Quit the damn whining. No wonder the GOP thinks the Dem party is full of soft minded people.

[Canaris]

Do you seriously think that, because of his vote on this bill, that the Republicans WON'T paint Obama and Democrats as being soft on terror? Have you not been paying attention for the last 24 years?

As sure as the sun rises in the east, the Republican hit parade will be as follows

1. soft on terror and national security
2. will raise everyones taxes
3. elitist liberal out of touch with mainstream America

The Republicans are as predictable as a bowel movement. It doesn't matter which way Obama voted on this bill, the attacks will be the same.

[PAposter]

Canaris, you are absolutely correct, a vote either way would have resulted in the same reaction.

[vippy]

And that would stop it LOL. I am not that naive. Who in this day and age still falls for the word
TERRORISM. Only the dumb who think our ports are not run by Arabs and our borders are
sealed tight.

[tommybones]

Well done. You correctly put the word TERRORISM in caps, to signify how SCARED we should all be, as we goose-step behind our "protectors" in Congress and the White House.

[tommybones]

Are you telling me that Obama couldn't make a strong case passing the same bill, only without telecom immunity? You don't think he could ask the obvious question; if these provisions are so important, then you wouldn't deny them merely to give immunity to a few phone companies, right? Protect phone companies at the expense of national security? You don't think Obama could win that argument with the public???? Who are totally behind those sentiments already????

[JustSaying]

Right on tommybones. You nailed it exactly.

[MickyD10]

Yes, Obama could win that argument with the public. Unfortunately the public doesn't vote on legislation. This was in the bag for Bush and the telecoms long ago. You can thank at least two members of Mccain's advisory staff for this piece of legislation. They helped to write it. So go jump down Johnny's throat.

There was no way that an amendment striping the immunity from this bill would pass. Even if the immunity clause was removed by the House and Senate Bush has said numerous times he would veto ANY bill which did not contain the immunity provision . And the numbers say there wasn't enough support against it to overturn the veto. Another thing. This whole filibuster thing from Dodd and Reid et al, was nothing but a show. They knew going in that the Senate had the votes to invoke cloture. And they did.

Sometimes in politics, as in life, you have to take the good with the bad in order to move forward. Yes, this bill gives the telecoms immunity. I don't like that either. But it also shuts down Bushes program which completely bypassed FISA and conducted warrantless wiretapping and spying on American citizens. To me this bill is a first step. I'm sure we'll see more on this issue in the future. In the meantime, Bushes illegal activities have been haulted and to some extent, at least, our civil liberties have been restored. To me that's a very good thing.

[jackie4444]

No, Spox. No compromise about this. What Obama's done on FISA is a
cave-in that puts the lie to everything that's gotten him where he is. He's
not the first presidential candidate (or President) to face the possibility of being
'painted' in a particular matter by the opposition or the public - and he won't be the
last. Apparently its been around a long time:

"I am accused of being the enemy of America...every act of my administration is
tortured, in such exaggerated and indecent terms as could scarcely be applied
to Nero, to a notorious defaulter, or even to a common pickpocket."
(President George Washington in a letter to future President Thomas Jefferson).

Obama has shown himself more than capable of resisting stereotyping or pigeonholing.
This administration has essentially no credibility left. For both those reasons, your
argument is just not persuasive. The Bush administration has been flagrantly violative
of constitutional rights of Americans on multiple fronts. The last thing the country needs
is another President who shares the same disregard for the constitution - and who can
operate with greater impunity because he is smarter and better-liked by the public than
Bush and a 'historic first'.

[EdCoughlin]

You do know that in a Melman poll done this year 6 out of 10 Americans are against immunity for telecoms and warrant-less eavesdropping right? Even a majority of Republicans are against both. If he actually had a spine on this issue it would have been beneficial since he would be siding with most Americans (especially most Americans inclined to vote for him). How would I vote? Easy, I would join Reid, Biden and others to filibuster the thing as Obama promised to do a year ago when he was looking for progressive support. Nice that once he got it he immediately sold the constitution down the river which is certainly not what we gave him the money to do.

[xcrunner77]

Professor Obama, your Constitutional law class is giving you a failing grade!

No one is holding you to any crazy leftwing standards -- we are holding you to your own standards, to your promise. and more importantly, to the job description you want to have: "to preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution. If you won't do it now, why should anyone believe you'll do it in office? Are you going to get in there and grant immediate pardons to Bush and Cheney too?

My advice to Obama supporters is to hold on to your wallets. Keep that $20 you were going to send in. Put it toward your mortage or in the gas tank instead. The Obama campaign is used to a million dollars a day pouring in. When that stream of cash slows to a trickle, they will remember the principles that created the movement that put them where they are now.

They are in danger of becoming as arrogant as Hillary was, assuming this is now a coronation. They need to remember that this is a campaign funded "by the people" as Barack says, and guess what? If "the people" don't like a Presidential candidate who is already taking scissors to the Constitution, we have the power to pull our support and leave you high and dry.

p.s. how am I supposed to explain this position to my friends and family who are not yet Obama supporters? What's the talking point supposed to be?

[scooperss]

You can always use what I consider the dumbest-------*he's not mccain.*

[EdCoughlin]

I'll vote for Obama for not being McCain just like I voted for Kerry for not being Bush, but that buys only my vote, not my support. If only there was a moderate third party again like in 92 to keep the candidates honest. I never thought we'd need one with Obama, but little did I know he too would transform from Dr. Obama to Mr. Capitulation.

Send your money and time to democrats in tough house and senate races, when Obama fundraisers call to ask if you want to give them another xxx dollars tell them thats what you're doing and why. Maybe next time our basic constitutional rights come to a vote he won't side with neocons and fascists.

[Okieborn]

Where are you going Sir !!
America worked Hard for You and TRUSTED YOUR WORDS I WILL NOT VOTE FOR FISA !!
YOU ARE LETTING US DOWN SIR !!

[dollars2donuts]

Wow, I am just amazed at all the whiners on the left (I'm a leftie , too) going nuts on this issue. I'm not gonna vote for BO now, waaah!!!

OMG, folks, get a grip. That's why senators are rarely elected president, because they have to actually VOTE on difficult bills--often this is a difficult decision when you have imperfect bills like this. There was a lot good in the bill, some bad, and it can be fixed later--why is everyone acting like it's armagedden? The far left is going to lose us this election in Congress and for prez if they're not careful--we do have to compromise sometimes, and this is a temporary compromise. Okay, now you can go back to tearing out your hair again, LOL.

[rzan1]

Exactly.

[kcinci]

Here! Here!

For all the yelling about the constitution in the complaints on this thread why has it not been mentioned (as it was on KO last night) that for months we've been in constitutional crisis with no FISA law in place... and at the very least this bill does realign federal surveillance with the 4th amendment.

For all the complaints about immunity for the telecoms there is none for the administration and no criminal immunity.

Perfect? No. Better than nothing? Absolutely. A president who can stand up to NeoCon AND NeoLib... PRICELESS!

For those "I'll not donate another dime"... cool. I've just upped my donations 20%.

[anney]

There is NO Constitutional crisis -- the FISA law that limited Bush's rights and does NOT give the telecoms retroactive immunity is right now in effect and would be in effect if no other bill were ever passed. The Constitutional is seriously wrecked when Congress passes this law.

[EdCoughlin]

You know...there's another way to solve this crisis. They pass a law that says the FISA court is the only place to go for any wiretaps in any case, the 3 day grace period stands, and anyone who violates the law, even the president, is committing treason against the constitution. Easy, direct, Constitutional, solves the crisis.

I don't say don't donate, I say spend them money and time you would donate on a democratic candidate in a hard senate or house race that might actually not back down to the Bushites.

Being against violations of the 4th amendment does not make anyone a neolib. over 50% of Republicans are against warranties wiretaps and telecom immunity too (6 in 10 over the general population). How is siding with the Constitution anything but the patriotic American thing to do no matter your party? Is the country so sadly slanted to the right these days that even expecting the actions of the legislature and president to be constitutional is excessively liberal?

[marinade]

Once again....

When immunity is granted, it cannot be "fixed later."

I'm starting to have more of a problem with O ba ma supporters than with O ba ma. They continually make stupid and untrue comments. They are unconvincing and unpersuasive. This is looking bad for America.

You get a grip...

[vippy]

compromise no, losing standards yes! We have been through this already and look where it got us?

[jackie4444]

OK, dollars. Please get a copy of the actual language of the bill. Then post the specific language from the bill which you are suggesting constitutes "a lot of good". Pelosi may spin to her heart's content. There is NOTHING good about this bill. And it is BY NO MEANS a 'temporary' compromise.

If Obama loses this election, it will have been no one's responsibility but HIS OWN. Since the primaries ended Obama's been acting like nothing so much as the guy from the Greek myth
who loses what he already has in his hand when he sees his own reflection in the water
and reaches for what the reflected man has in his.

There is a certain irony in the fact that as someone noted here, Obama does seem to have
embarked on much the same self-destructive course that undermined Mrs. Clinton's primary efforts - particularly the 'presumption of inevitability' and the tone-deafness to voter perceptions
of the stark disparities between words and actions.

[Trollstakeyourmeds]

Wow..this is one of the most comprehensive and true posts I've read in a while. Thanks.

[EdCoughlin]

There's also a difference between disagreeing with the base on a farm bill, an energy bill or some minor policy issue. This is far reaching and a once in a decade issue. This basically writes in stone every illegal thing the Bush administration did to violate our most basic 4th amendment rights. The follow up act is not only does it make illegal government surveillance legal, but it even excuses those who did it when it was not legal. The founding fathers are turning over in their graves.

Find a democratic congressman or senator (or even a few) who are running tough races and support the constitution and spend whatever time or money you were going to spend on Obama helping them. Then you're helping the democrats still (so next time this comes up there will be enough democrats with guts to override it), but sending a message to Obama that we care more about the constitution then his charisma.