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

[JBoy]

Are the Constitutionalists who want to protect the 4th Amendment, the same people who want to protect the 2nd Amendment?

[strifeknot]

Do you care about the 4th Amendment as fervently as you do the 2nd, or do you really think you're being clever having caught them dastardly hypocritical libruls in yr fiendish trap?

[alwayslearning]

Welcome to the world of politics -- Say one thing to get your vote and then do whatever you damn well please once you get to be the candidate. This is just the beginning. Let's see now. He has already back-peddled on NAFTA....I­raq....and now, FISA. What's next....wi­ll health care bite the dust, too.

[plainsman]

What's the point of arguing with people that don't value the constitution and the rule of law, but value political gamesmanship and their corporate masters?

[metrext]

There is no point in arguing if you wish to convince anyone of anything. Arguments are good for blowing off steam.

To convince someone of something both sides have to compromise and be willing to listen. And at least one side has to be willing to be convinced.

[strifeknot]

There's no reason to be compromising our civil liberties for political expediency.

[crooky62]

obama has lost me on this one, i hope a pattern's not developing here.

[Clevelanded]

I agree.

[strifeknot]

There's already a disturbing trend underway. Prepare for further disappointment.

[thatvisionthing]

I agree.

[Seattlelite]

When I first heard about this instead of throwing Sen. Obama under the bus (as many here seem so willing to do) I asked myself what might be the reason for his position. Then I remembered what I thought cost John Kerry the election. The republicans manage to make people believe that Kerry didn't have the ability to protect this country. This was at a time people were more worried about terrorism then their liberties. Yes, many of us didn't buy into that and knew better but for many that claim sticked on Kerry. How quickly we've forgotten how swift boating can work. I believe Obama is trying to avoid what happen to Kerry. I could well be wrong here but that's my opinion. I know that there is little Obama can do until he is President and I believe also that he is the right guy to turn this country in the right direction, so I'm not going to be so quick to throw him under the bus.

[macbabe]

Hi form Issaquah :) ... well reasoned post!

[ohmercy]

no it isn't it is childish and unreasoned if you have any concept of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and what our country is built upon.

Read the senator's oath of office.
This is a travesty.

[ohmercy]

you know criticizing someone when they are doing wrong is not throwing them under the bus. Holding someone accountable to their principled positions that they stated earlier is not throwing them under the bus. demanding that they honor their oath of office is not throwing them under the bus. Voicing dissent and being aware of the issues is not throwing them under the bus, it is doing your job as a citizen to ensure that those we HIRE to represent US actually do represent us and not telecoms.

John Kerry has nothing to do with this, there is nothing applicable or parrallel that is remotely usable between the two situations.

No one is saying don't vote for hijm.
No one is saying they won't vote for him.
People are saying this is WRONG. (it is also very dangerous.­)
read the fourth amendment, the Bill of rights, the oath of office and then read the bill.

Oh, read Obama's speech exerpts I posted a little while ago.
he promised to filibuster. He is stating exactly the opposite of what he said not even a year ago.

BTW. If it was Hillary Clinton would you be so charitable?

[macbabe]

how would you handle if you were in his shoes when there was a test vote and it came out 80 to 16?

your running for president, getting elected is your main focus and you party is going to vote to pass it by a majority..­. be #17 soft on terror?

[plainsman]

The constitution is not something to be jeopardized or compromised for a political game or strategy.

[blackpope]

The funny part of your comment is that, by making this decision he took care of the constitution, the only thing he didn't do is make it retroactiv­e...and in all honesty what matters is going forward not backward.

[crooky62]

your explanation sounds very reasonable it has put me at ease for now,thanks­..

[Gemma08]

Well reasoned.

[MSB]

This country is a joke.

Our government is showing that they regard The Constitution as just so much paper. Most politicians are just serving to enrich their pocketbooks. There are apparently no ideals other than cronyism.

Why anyone would pledge allegiance to anything this country currently has to offer is beyond me.

[thatvisionthing]

The Constitution isn't the paper. The Constitution is what we believe in, what we choose to live. It's not something a politican can decide for you. Hold onto it yourself.

[MSB]

thatvisionthing,

While I admire your heart, I think you are wrong. Politicians can and do decide what it is about. Legislators make laws and courts interpret them. THEY all have more say about The Constitution than do I. I can rant about my rights as they haul me off to jail.

Wake me up when the revolution is here.

[ohmercy]

Obama August 2007: This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. . . . That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America, and that is why the fifth part of my strategy is doing the hard and patient work to secure a more resilient homeland.

Obama November 2007:

"Barack Obama just unleashed a corker of a speech that had students here at Converse College on their feet and cheering. . . . One of his most passionate passages was not in the prepared text. He promised to close down Guantanamo "because we're not a nation that locks people up without charging them. We will restore habeas corpus. We are not a nation that undermines our civil liberties. We are not a nation that wiretaps without warrants."

http://tinyurl.com/5wrrhg

[miracleman]

does ANYBODY realize that the bill RESTORES the FISA courts so that warrentless wiretaps cannot done by fiat!

Suing telcos is just another attempt at massive class action lawsuites. What court is going find them guilty when the Bush Administration clearly instigated this whole mess?! !

The telcos part in this is relatively minor when compared to the fervor in which the Bush people disregarded the law to achieve it's own ends.

You want to repeal immunity for the telcos? Then arrest the president and charge him with a crime!

[ohmercy]

wrong.

http://tinyurl.com/5wrrhg

* In American Prospect, Julian Sanchez exposes the myth being peddled by Nancy Pelosi and others that the FISA bill doesn't legalize warrantless eavesdropping on Americans:

The award for the most bald-faced lie on the House floor Friday, however, goes to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who insisted that the bill "does not allow warrantless surveillance of Americans.­" She is wrong. It does.

The broader spying powers given to the executive branch by the compromise bill require intelligence agencies to "target" foreigners. But if those foreign "targets" happen to call or e-mail Americans, those communications are fair game. And since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is only permitted to review the broad targeting procedures government eavesdroppers use to determine that a target is abroad, and not the substantive basis for authorizing surveillance of any target, anyone is a potential target.

The bill, in other words, allows the government to conduct "vacuum cleaner" surveillance -- sweeping up international traffic willy-nilly -- then filter it for anything that looks interesting. Indeed, many believe that licensing such surveillance is precisely the point of this legislation. If so, "warrantless surveillance of Americans" could well become routine, whether or not they are the formal "targets" of eavesdropping.

[ohmercy]

class action law suits?
Something else Obama sided with Republican's on.

http://tinyurl.com/5wrrhg
Read Glenn Greenwald for a breakdown of what is going on with Fisa.
He is always complete and brings in what is being said elsewhere .Whatever else is true, if Democrats and Barack Obama vote this bill into law, they will be (a) legalizing warrantless spying on Americans and (b) embracing the core premise of Bush radicalism: that as long as the President says something is legal (as he told telecoms that warrantless spying was legal), then it ought to be treated as such.

sigh.

[Seattlelite]

You're expecting people to actually read the bill and to take into account the bigger picture? That's allot of expecting. LOL. Thanks for our post miracleman glad to know I'm not the only one trying to see reason beyond panic.

[plainsman]

I've read the bill and poured over expert analysis. This bill does not restore FISA. It distorts it. Basically, everything that was illegal about Bush's spy pro

[allwrite]

'Suing telcos is just another attempt at massive class action lawsuites. What court is going find them guilty when the Bush Administration clearly instigated this whole mess?! !'

This is a mitigating factor as to penalty; not relevant to determination of criminal conduct.

[Dunnage]

Thanks for worrying about us Obama. Prying and spying is what made this country great.

[hiNY]

I am genuinely concerned, because everybody expects Obama to be their belief-clone. It is crazy, and truly childish.

[buckygreen]

Supporting the Constitution is crazy and childish now?

[hiNY]

I gave my reasons elsewhere. I doubt those people who wrote the constitution taught of an enemy that will disguise as a citizen. That is the problem with terrorism.

[buckygreen]

Sen. Russ Feingold, another aggressive opponent of the compromise, spoke with sorrow over his party's unwillingness to put up a principled fight.

"It's the latest chapter of running for cover when the Administration tries to intimidate Democrats on national security issues," he told The Young Turks radio show. "It's the most embarrassing failure of the Democrats I've seen since 2006, other than the failure to vote to end the Iraq war. These are the two real sad aspects of an otherwise pretty good record. It's letting George Bush and Dick Cheney have their way even though they're that unpopular and on their way out. It's really incredible­."

[Seattlelite]

You're assuming that Feingold has all the answers. This fight is better fought and can be won when Sen. Obama becomes President. Bush isn't going to jail over this nor is a single telecom person so move this on down the road and tackle it when something can be done. Right now it's nothing more than a bad soap opera.

[plainsman]

This is the last issue I thought he would cave on.

[Seattlelite]

You may believe he's caving, however, I tend to believe he's smart enough to know to get himself elected and win the war not the fist fight.

[ohmercy]

this isn't about belief.
this is about law, civil liberties, the constitution, the Bill of Rights.
This is about what makes our country OUR country. This is what our freedom rests on.
If you let them take one libverty away the next one is a little easier to take.

Why would you want a President who would take away your fourth amendment rights.
Why would you want a President that you would not hold his feet to the fire.

That is your job otherwise you are just like the republicans who thought everything the idiotking wanted to do was OK by them.

Stop.
Maybe you need to reaquaint yourself with the 4th Amendment, civil liberties, the Bill of Rights and maybe most importantly the oath of Office.

Let me tell you something.
I was (and am) a Clinton supporter but if she came out in favor of this... and she may... I would criticize her fiercely, I would write to her, email her, phone her office non stop.
My support does not mean my capitulation. these people are OUR representatives not the telecom representatives.

You want to be involved in politics? Well it ain't pretty and even those we sincerely care about, respect, admire need to be held accountable.
Sure, you can vote for them, just because you are making legitimate grievencces doesn't mean you don't support him but it is childish to think you should not shout out loud when your civil liberties are threatened because you like him.

[rzan1]

Have you actually read the bill? d

[hiNY]

You are mad for the sake of being mad. Clinton is not a saint, she supported the war and will probably support this. So supporting her in the first place despite her record on the war should put you on the sidelines of morality. Because you are so bitter about FISA that I cannot see you supporting somebody who voted for the worst war in a generatio.

All I am trying to say is, you should remember that there are many more issues to fight for with Obama than to fight aginst him about. That being said, I do not have that much problem with this bill. All this bill does is separate, criminal justice courts and terorism-related courts, and do so in order to protect our fourth amendement without endermining the security of the country. So you need to read more. Remember these are the issues you and Obama have in common (or at least I hope so): healthcare, the war, the economy, purging special interest form washington, Gauntanamo, the environment, and Education.

[tbone99]

No what is childish is having "faith" that a politican will do whats right for the country.

[plainsman]

As far as I understand the FISA portion of this bill, which is WAY more important than immunity, the bill does not set any restriction on the widespread gathering of communications, email and phone, that are international. They can look at everything, every single call, without a warrant. They have 7 days to ask the court for a warrant to focus on the people communicating. If, for some reason, the court denies their request for a warrant, they can still gather information on that person for up to 60 days on appeal, and if then, if the court says no, they can still use the information gathered against the people involved. This bill does not adequately protect our right to privacy or our 4th amendment rights. It's a horrible bill. Immunity was only important as it relates to the FISA bill because it was seen as the easiest way to kill it. I have my own problems with immunity, namely, that the legislative branch should not be interfering in ongoing civil court cases, not to mention letting those who broke the law go unpunished and stifling the inquiry into the scope of the Bush administration's illegal spy program . It sets a horrible precedent. If anyone wants to correct me, feel free. I'd love to get a better understanding of the bill so I can go to sleep a little easier at night.

[metrext]

I don't think it will help you to sleep. But I would say that all call and emails are recorded and analyzed already. It may have started as a foreign exercise, but once the technology was built did we really expect they wouldn't use it on us?

The only questions left to answer are how to legally restrict investigations and arrests that use the recorded data. The data is a constant.

[plainsman]

Just because we are not surprised that the gov't is becoming a police state or is already, doesn't mean that we cannot be outraged and pressure our representatives to safeguard our liberties.

When the stories about domestic spy satellites that can offer high-resolution images to police and gov't agencies were revealed in print media, the cable media didn't even report on it. When the Real-ID act was passed, it was swept under the rug as well. I'm terrified that this FISA bill will provide the framework and justification to illegally spy on Americans without a warrant. What was relegated to foreign activity only (supposedly) will become legal for domestic use. I do not want to live in Big Brother world, and I'm not going to accept the Oh Well attitude.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081502430_pf.html

[ohmercy]

you are getting the gist.
the original Fisa Bill was totally adequate. In all the years since it was enacted there has never been a problem and only one warrant was denied.
There is a window of three days to get a warrent and the government can start the wiretap immediately if they have a suspicion while they get the warrant together.

Glenn Greenwald is doing an excellent job on this:

http://tinyurl.com/5wrrhg

[plainsman]

Yeah. I've read Greenwald's Salon articles. He does do a good job. There's just so much misinformation being put out there, in my mind, to intentionally mislead the public. It's sickening.

[macbabe]

There are leaders and followers, and then are couch potatoes ..drink up!

[Chillinout]

Can't I be all three?

[macbabe]

shhh ...don't spoil my point LOL

[macbabe]

ok scrub-monkey have it your way...

hi neighbor, well reasoned post!

[macbabe]

that was in response to ddharder staying home and drinking beer

[Countdown09]

Talking to a republican friend tonight who said something very telling -- she said that's what we love about you democrats you'll eat you own.

[plainsman]

Yeah, there's a difference between being ideological and idealistic.

[ohmercy]

yeah, that's what they say.
I noticed that throughout the whole primary.

[rzan1]

Your friend is right. It isn't Obama who disappoints. It is his fairweather supporters.

[tbone99]

Yes , we must be good germans .

[kotexbarbie]

Now we know what he meant when he said Republicans were the party of ideas. Obama is an opportunistic chameleon. He promised moveon.org (as a condition for their endorsement) that he would filibuster any bill that contained immunity for the telecoms. Nothing has changed since he made that statement, except his own self-interest.

Edwards 2012 !

[KISSman]

Hey, thanks for nothing on this issue.

It's nice to know that what is said in the primary season is no longer valid now when the only option remaining is an old kooky Republican who always will look/be worse on issues in comparison.