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

[Tommygun264]

I suggest that everyone click in the "See Profile" link to the right of the Screen Name of everyone posting comments claiming to be disillusioned Obama supporters. Tokyo Rose is alive and well on The Huffington Post.

[PAposter]

Exactly Tommygun!

[AtheistAd]

For what it's worth, I got this username on bugmenot.com, like I do for all of these registration websites ... because I do actually care about my privacy.

I most certainly supported Obama two weeks ago ... and I don't anymore. It's funny how many Obama supporters are on here calling former Obama supporters "trolls". I'm not a troll, far from it.

But I am asking for my campaign donations back! For what it's worth, when Sen. Byrd backed Alito and I asked for my contributions back, the guy was honorable enough to actually send me my money back ... we shall see how the Obama campaign handles the requests and what degree their "honor" is.

[djelimon]

You know I was looking at your profile and couldn't find any posts supporting Obama.

[EdCoughlin]

That's actually a good idea! I wonder if you really can do that. That would send a much more direct message then just not donating in the future.

[Keith52]

You are right Tommygun. I am not disillusioned at all. This kind of rational thinking is EXACTLY what I saw in Barack before I voted for him. If the Democrats were going to block this compromise simply because they want to sue the phone companies I think we would have a big problem. We would lose the suits, because the telecoms were just doing what the POTUS was telling them they HAD TO DO. The telecoms would win the case and we would not have protection in the FISA. Barack has demonstrated wisdom and maturity and strength in this matter.

[EdCoughlin]

You obviously have never been involved in litigation before. Even if they lose it doesn't mater, what does matter is discovery. In the course of the civil suits it would become very clear exactly what happened and at what time when documents were made available for the pending court hearings. Even if the plaintiffs lose the American people win.

Why could they not just say not using FISA is illegal, it was fine before and should be followed, anyone who does not use the courts as demanded by the law is guilty of treason.

Simple, direct, effective.

[marinade]

The rest of us just aren't posting any more.

Disillusioned? It's more accurate to say that we don't have the illusion that O b ama is any different from other politicians. Unfortunately.

It's a sad day when the trolls start making sense.

[wayoutleft]

your point is that we can remove tokyo rose from the rapidly shrinking list of disillusioned obama supporters? or what? or is it (just trying to be helpful...) that unless you once supported obama- your criticsms don't count? is that it? so when we ascertain actual, bona fide disillusioned obama supporters, we do what with them, exactly? what exactly are we looking for in the profiles to distinguish disillusioned obama supporters from the more generically disillusioned- if that's the distinction we're looking for? or- maybe more succinctly- how can we apply what we learned in the soviet purge trials to our undying love for Glorious Hero of the People, Barack Hussein Obama?

[meanguy]

it must be getting crowded obama's bus...how much space does a constitutional principle take up along with promises on campaign funding, postion(s) on nafta, a couple ministers, typical white grandmother, an entire church, the white middle class...?

[Seven7s]

This man continues to disappoint me.

First time he did it was with the shucking and jiving for white people during the Rev. Wright fiasco.

Then he goes to AIPAC and practically gets on his knees and swallows Isreal whole unnesesarly, once again PANDERING.

Then when Nader rightly critisizes him about not saying what he'll do (if anything) to help innercity poor people and stop pandering to white people, he chose to dismiss him as if Nader wasnt making sound points.

Now this guy votes for anti-privacy legislation so he doesnt look like a "MOOS-LUM TUR-RIST?"

This guy may as well be Hillary Clinton at this point. Anything to win hey Barack?

I was a diehard supporter but it seems I am slowly starting to be more AGAINST McCain then FOR Obama. He is proving himself to be spineless and inconsistant in his actions.

[Keith52]

Then vote for McCain and see how disappointed you become. Remember, this is American Politics and we want to work with the Republicans to reach positive compromise. We don't want a divisive left wing democrat whereby nothing gets done because of so called "principles." Washington is not going to change overnight. Unless you can find us a dictator and plan a overthrow... Come on people. What planet are you on?

[DrCahill]

Dissenting views do not mean opposition to the candidate! What planet are you on?

[DrCahill]

You could be right Seven7s. He seems to be trying to please everybody! And you can't!
Bring back the Obama who inspired us all and defeated HRC and Bubba!

[smoo]

Okay. Seven7s. Take a slight step back. Just a slight step. Leading and pandering are different. AIPAC is an influential group, they should be respected like all influential groups.

Rev. Wright was doing the shucking and jiving, he was over the top and his comments offended a great many Americans just like Bill Clinton's race comments.

When is the last time you heard anyone running for POTUS talk about what they are going to do for innercity poor people and why should he be any different? He doesn't talk about what he's gong to do for outtercity rich people either.

The anti-privacy legislation is debatable in many inner-circles. He is a constitutional lawyer, that understands that the threats we face ar real. He has never voted against weakening our ability to secure this nation. As for for the anti-privacy thing, we have none. That's exactly why the telecom lines need to be monitored, all open societies must figure out a way to monitor for fruitcakes.

He may as not be Hillary Clinton, you just made a very loose and irresponsible comparison their buddy. You must understand governing is a delicate balancing act. He is turning from "campaign" Obama, that courts the people into marriage, to the man Obama that has to be prudent and concerned about the tools and systems we use to keep the country safe.

[smoo]

You can do better Seven7s. You can and I know you can. Remember the media is still at work here, they painted the guy as being cotton candy blue. It wasn't so, he is still a fantastic candidate but he is handing out handing our tootsie rolls and jelly-beans to the masses.

[AnotherTry]

I like how all the comments on important topics require the utmost scrutiny. I guess this will never see the light of day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GwURMsRiQs

[Quilter]

And what would HRC do in this situation? Hmmmm.

[111]

hard to say - she is a chameleon like most politicians. She says she will not support the bill. I hope she doesn't and I hope there are more doing the same.

[kameleon75515]

Can changes or amendments be made to this bill after the fact?

There are holes in the wording of it, that much has been revealed. So he needs to explain these details and explain what his plans are to rectify this mess if he gets into the white house. What are his plans (in detail) to protect peoples rights?

I think he should have made a stand against this bill instead of going with the flow.

This is not the election year for him to be caving into pressure. He got to where he is by going against the status quo. By speaking out against the war, so why is he starting to go with the flow now to get votes?

Bad move.

In the wider scheme of things the bill would have past whether he voted against it or not, but at least historically he would have been one of the minority who voted against.

The arguement he had against Clinton was the fact that she hoped that Bush would not use her vote to invade Iraq. Her arguement was nuanced. Unfortunately he is making a similar mistake now.

[3Gs]

I will post this thought again. His ploy is probably trying to score Independant votes. Stop being such a left wing nut and use your head. If he jumps on the Fiengold bus, he will be labled (successfully) as too far to the left.

[Tommygun264]

So because Obama doesn't do exactly as we wish on every issue we should vote for McSame? Is that really the best you 'pub trolls can come up with? Even if Senator Obama reversed himself on 90% of the issues, he would still be a better choice than John McSame. The 'pubs stink of desperation.

[rzan1]

The problem is that so many people expected him to be perfect, which is always a mistake. You set yourselves up for disappointment. I think everybody is overreacting. I am a staunch Pro-Lifer, but I am solidly behind Obama. It isn't about one issue, I feel he is sincere, and I trust his decision about FISA and telecom immunity.

[Bagger]

We are a nation that believes the President should protect us. Until we as Americans get out of this mindset Presidents and those aspiring to be President will do anything to show they are protecting us. Even if that means stretching the Constitiution to the limits or even breaking it. Looking weak on terror is the only thing that will stop Obama from becoming President. He could not risk it. So even though this FISA decision may be disappointing for many of you....there are many other issues more important and more pressing. Just don't expect Obama to make any decisions during this campaign that will make him seem weak on "terror".

[3Gs]

Well said, and hope others see the sence in your words.

[thatvisionthing]

Live free or die. Becoming a police state does not protect me and does not protect America. It's insane. Oh look at that fly on the wall, quick get me a president with a nuke to kill it.

[AtheistAd]

Obama is full of crap. This issue was never about "immunity" it was about bulk spying on U.S. citizens without probable cause and it still is about that issue.

Obama is a paid dirt bag and a DLC shill. I had huge hopes for the guy, and those are basically all garbage now. I adamantly oppose pretty much all of the DLC policies. They are basically equal to or worse than Republicans and they cost a lot more money.

If Obama is elected he's still going to trash the environment, he's going to stuff himself full of Exxon money, and he's going to keep Iraq going, probably increase the budget. This is the reality because this is what the DLC wants and it's pretty clear he was just a puppet for them (something I was always concerned about).

Obama lost me. I'm voting reduced taxes and flat-lining/hopefully reduced spending this year. I can't stand McCain, but McCain and Obama are going to vote the same way on everything, only McCain is going to charge me less taxes, so he's got my vote now.

[sparkandy]

Double dog dare you to post this on DailyKos. Their idea of civil discourse is to call anyone who doesn't worship Obama a troll.

[AtheistAd]

I sent the above to Marcos himself.

Marcos is becoming more of a DLC shill himself every day and I don't read his blog like basically at all anymore.

[sparkandy]

What did everyone expect? Obama is a politician and does whatever it takes to get what he wants, regardless of who likes it or doesn't like it. People need to stop acting like he's suddenly turned into a demon because he's doing something they don't like. If he becomes President he'll have to do it all the time. He's no better and no worse than any other politician. What are the Dems gonna do, now that there's tarnish on Obama's halo? Vote Republican? Stay home? He's the nominee and he's all the Dems have, no matter how he flip flops or breaks promises. You guys are stuck with him, just like the Repubs are stuck with McCain and the rest of us have miserable choices again this election.

[AnotherTry]

Stay home seems like a good option. He could always just be a better candidate. What's so hard about that? It is clearly what the country wants.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GwURMsRiQs

[nick1936]

Just another inside the beltway guy what a disappointment this guy turned out to be .no more checks or manning phone banks for me in his behalf

SO SO SAD

[peacekitten]

security will NEVER be found in surrendering our constitutional rights. period.

if we are that frightened that the big, bad terrorists are going to get us if we don't allow the government to invade our private phone converstions at will, a clear violation of the fourth amendment, then the terrorists and the right wing have won.

the PATRIOT act must be repealed, asap. it should never have been passed in the first place.

we had a perfectly good set of basic laws to start with. they were called the constitution.

[Bees]

A vote for Obama is a vote for four more years of the Bush administration.

[Hardguy]

WHAT!?!

[macbabe]

Senate nears end of debate over surveillance bill
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_co/terrorist_surveillance;_ylt=ArshBwkPdDbii0oszqobfHas0NUE

The original FISA had restrictions and the B Administration ignored them.

That's why the telecom companies need immunity from prosecution now! B ordered them to do this data-mining, knowing it was a violation of FISA, and probably promised the telecoms immunity.

The immunity provision is designed to protect the smaller telecoms that went along with the B Administration plan to wiretap. The smaller companies would be put out of business and otherwise seriously damaged if they were subject to lawsuits over this.

The question arises, shouldn't all the companies that went along and did this illegal thing be liable?

O says yes, that's why he is working to get that immunity provision out of the House FISA bill!

B will veto any FISA bill that does not include the immunity provision. That's why the Republicans want to pass it.

O said he would vote for the FISA because the bigger picture is the need to intercept transmissions from or to terrorists. If O goes against it, he will be perceived as not being willing to protect Americans from terrorists. McBush can use this against O.

O is stuck to where any vote of his is going to cause trouble for him. Republicans are delighted about that.

I think he knows which way to vote to get the best outcome, all things considered.

[thatvisionthing]

LOVE THE PICTURE! So Titanic, so slip sliding away, so sad. Watching all the words like deck chairs rearranging themselves, floating by. Good job HuffPo.

[ohnoyoudidnot!]

I am so upset with Obama. Is he doing this so he won't look weak on Terrorism? I am honestly more afraid of my constitutional rights being infringed upon and eventually lost. So who is Obama? Until I find out, I'm going to suspend my financial donations and volunteer work for his campaign. I will vote for him in November, but I won't give any more money until he returns to his former self.

[Bagger]

"Is he doing this so he won't look weak on Terrorism?"

YES!

It' the only thing that will stop him from becoming President.

[reliant1]

The Blue Dog Dems have after him relentlessly to back this bill....they feel they need the stand to keep their constituents happy.

This is a bit of a public tightrope - but once elected - his DOJ can pursue criminal indictments and new legislation can be passed to strip the immunity.

He can support this now and maintain unity w/i the elected party or not...and the Blue Dogs will make him pay for it later. I think he's pushing Dodd and Feingold to go after this - if they can sway enough votes to overcome the Blue Dogs then he may be able to oppose it and not pay for it later with loss of support...

[smoo]

No. He's doing it because he means it.