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

[SatanicPanic]

Boooooooooo! Obama has jumped the shark. I will still vote for him- with a clothespin on my nose.

[hiNY]

Every one here seems to be posting nontechnical comments. I fail to understand the reason for their anger. First of all, if anyone expected Obama to agree with them, or any other person or idealogical group, all the time and on all issues, then I should say, saddle up because you are bound to be dismayed one too many times. This man has maverick tendencies and is highly logical and WE SHOULD NOT expect him to sheepishly adapt the dems or the left's position all the time.

When it comes to fisa though, everybody needs to take a deep breath and decipher the tandem nature of the bill. If the bill passes without immunity for the telecom comp., it will be useless. Because the telecom comp. will not cooperate with the goverment, we should not expect them to, without any assurance about the legality of the cooperation. However, one might argue about the whole bill and say it is unwarranted, saying that the civilian criminal justice courts can deal with terrorism-related intelligence-gathering and there is no need for terrorism-specific courts to deal with it. That is naive though. Because, when handling terrorism, the government is dealing with paramilitary organizations, and it is only feasible to establish paramilitary courts and intelligence apparatus to deal with the problem. So it is important that we identify the culprits in this issue, and it is not the the telecom companies that are merely complying. It is the government.

CONTINUED..

[smoo]

SMART. VERY SMART.

[hiNY]

I am genuinely concerned, because everybody expects Obama to be their belief-clone. It is crazy, and truly childish. let us stay up and try and talk to people! Thanks for the comment...

[AdLib]

Sorry guys but the phrase, the blind leading the blind comes to mind. There's so much inaccurate in your post, you really should read or listen to Russ Feingold's statement today to become a bit more informed on the actual provisions of the bill and what they mean.

[letsgetsmart]

We have the fbi,cia,nsa and other law enforcement people who don't like to cooperate with each other. We have a fbi who has top people that won't listen to field personnel so info that could have had an impact was not moved along. We have an administration that doesn't listen to anyone else including intelligence people from a out going administration. We survived for over two hundred years with out fisa. Maybe we should fix what is broken instead of putting something on the books that can be abused or ignored. There is absolutely no reason that this can not be put off till next year.

[Hardguy]

"... Because the telecom comp. will not cooperate with the goverment, we should not expect them to, without any assurance about the legality of the cooperation..."

Um, they already did exactly y that. Now they are being given retroactive civil immunity. Do you think you could get a deal like that? What's not patently un-American about it?

There is nothing about the gov't data mining the entire country that you should be in favor of.

[StarkRavingNakedEmperor]

Sam Stein-thanks for your rapid responses to the Obama campaign on their missives. It is good for them to know that you are closely monitoring them (as they are these blogs), keeping them honest and are going to continue to hold Obama's feet to the fire! He can walk this tightrope and take the heat if he is, as some have said, the brightest student to ever go through Harvard. You are doing him a favor by keeping him warmed up, on his toes and fighting trim as we barrel toward the General Election. Keep it coming!

Obi-wan Obama is our only hope!

[pupbayer]

WHO said he was the brightest student ever to go through Harvard? LOL I want names.

[SanityClaus]

Well, there were his peers who elected him to president of the law review... Then there were his Dem peers in the Senate, most of whom endorsed him for the Presidency... then there were the millions and millions of us who voted for him, defeating the inevitable one...

[smoo]

No one. But he went to Harvard, he is a lawyer, he wife is a lawyer, started out an activist on the streets of chicago, became a respected state senator, then became an American senator, he just out manuevered the notorious Clinton machine, and now he is leading the race to become the next POTUS. I really don't understand your point. Pupbutt.

[letsgetsmart]

You know the part of this that I do not like other then the obvious is his disagreement with Dodd and Feingold who are two of our leaders that any dem would say are the right thinking people. How can he not sit down with them and a take a chance on being persuaded. Is he going to fight with the likes of these two and Boxer once he is in the chair? These kind of people have been in the trenches for us for a long time and he is a new arrival.

[olivia]

If only Dodd, Feingold or Kucinich could be Obama's running mate. His diplomacy is terrific but he needs an attack dog on his ticket.

[Chillinout]

Changeling said:

In most jurisdictions you can.

Not for the taking of the car. But for creating an unacceptable danger to life and property. Most police departments have very stringent rules regarding the circumstances under which you can engage in a high-speed pursuit and how you have to conduct it. Some of these are now even codefied under law.

This Dirty Harry-esque scenario would almost certainly not qualify as an "acceptable" pursuit.

Even if it did, you'd STILL get your day in court to be heard. Not so with the Telecoms now.
________________________________________________________________________

Go here for the Supreme Court decision on limiting police liability in high speed pursuits.

http://www.aele.org/law/2007LRFEB/2007-02MLJ101.pdf You CAN'T sue them regardless of the jurisdiction. Federal law.

[AdLib]

Chillinout, seems like folks are getting a bit off point here. As I noted below:

Offering immunity to private/commercial entities after the fact of their committing a crime and in the process infringing on rights given Americans under the 4th Amendment has absolutely no correlation with police commandeering a car.

Always best to address the actual issues than analogies that, as in this case, are poor and not fitting.

[Chillinout]

Yeah that was a little off topic there, though it is something I feel fervently about. My personal opinion is that there should be NO police pursuits.

Got a bit of a button of mine pushed there I guess...:-)

[Changeling]

The cited cases do not apply.

In these instances, the deceased individuals were a party to the pursuit. (suspect's passenger, suspect. The same standards do not apply to bystanders under, generally ( stated police department policy or "reckless disregard."

Section 4 in the linked material cover this actually. Thanks for proving the point.

[politricking]

Obama, towing the Republican line.

Change? What change?

John Edwards was the best candidate it seems.

[olivia]

Kucinich was the best candidate imho.

[rzan1]

I really love Dennis Kucinich, but there is no way that he could handle the Presidency of the United States.

[Olerist]

he just lost my vote

apparently Dobson may have been right about Obama interpretations of the constitution

[Sabreen60]

A Dobson supporter - says everything

[olivia]

Great, and how do you think McCain approaches this FISA bill?

You make no sense.

[smoo]

Chill out. You have a right to vote and I am happy for you. Please, however, put a thinking head behind it. If you have problems with this position its okay, you have that right. But neither Dobson, nor I presume yourself, can claim to be a constitutional lawyer, professor of constitutional law, and past president of the Harvard Law Review. I am not trying to be funny here but too many people have bought into this media watered down version of a very smart, thoughtful, and considerate leader. It clear that he an opinion about how some of this stuff should work. He is not making these decisions in a vacuum, he is making this decision under the advisement of people who have lived and worked behind the scense of terroism for decades.

[Probus]

Dobson was talking about the Bible not the Constitution.

[olivia]

Try reading the articles before you comment.

I think Obama never had your vote.

[ohmercy]

So what changed?

On August 1 of last year, he[Barack Obama] delivered a speech entitled "The War We Need To Win" and said this

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.

[hiNY]

"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." Exactly... and he is NOT.."[illegally] wire-tapping [sic] American citizens."

look at my comments else were for the gist of my argument ..

[Ramirez]

He's in the general election now. He has to put the security of the country first if he is going to have a chance at winning. After he's in the WH he can change things around.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Change we shouldn't have believed in.

Oh well he doesn't need our money anymore. Big Business will finance his trip to the White House. Plus ca change . . . Here comes the new corporatism, same as the old corporatism.

[GingerB]

LOL! When have you ever written a nice word about 0bama? Our money? As if you've donated to his campaign. Aren't you being missed by the Ron Paul Forever Fan Club?

[AdLib]

Tonight's like a Rev. Wright controversy night where the tr0lls come out pretending they supported 0bama and swearing they'll never vote for him.

It's so old and lame, these weasels actually think anyone here buys their BS? What dopes!

[olivia]

No real Obama supporter would throw him under the bus over this.

Your other choice is still McCain.

I think you are not real.

[olivia]

Your name is redundant.

[hiNY]

The new fisa bill insures that everything is done under the watch of the law and curbs government infringement over individual rights with total disregard for the law.

So, let us stop following pumper stickers and think through issues in a common sensical manner; not doing so, is what killed this country for the last seven years. Please be little more focused, analyze issues critically and do not follow any group out of ideological loyalty. IF YOU DISAGREE; DISAGREE TECHNICALLY, CRITICALLY AND NON-REFLEXIVELY.

Thanks,
hiNY

[Chillinout]

Most of the people on here railing against it are just tr0lls trying to stir the pot.

[macbabe]

keep reminding me, I appreciate it :)
I don't like the scrub monkey though lol

[hiNY]

I have the same problem you are having, in fact the beginning section of my comment (it got too long so I had to divide it) has not made it yet.

[virto]

I won't spend the time disagreeing any more critically and non-reflexively than this: I'm a lawyer and no one who understands anything about the Constitution -- including Obama -- actually believes that this bill serves any legitimate purpose.

This is nothing more than pure politicking from someone I thought was above this. All it does is insulate the current Administration from future discovery and the prosecution that could come from it. And Obama's support for it is designed to do nothing more than assure all the mindless voters who don't think beyond the sound bites they hear that he's a "true American."

[hiNY]

remainder of comment..

Every one here seems to be posting nontechnical comments. I fail to understand the reason for their anger. First of all, if anyone expected Obama to agree with them, or an idealogical group, all the time and on all issues, then I should say, saddle up because you are bound to be dismayed one too many times. This man has maverick tendencies and is highly logical and WE SHOULD NOT expect him to sheepishly adapt the dems or the left's position all the time.

When it comes to fisa though, everybody needs to take a deep breath and decipher the tandem nature of the bill. If the bill passes without immunity for the telecom comp., it will be useless. Because the telecom comp. will not cooperate with the goverment, we should not expect them to, without any assurance about the legality of the cooperation. However, one might argue about the whole bill and say it is unwarranted, saying that the civilian criminal justice courts can deal with terrorism-related intelligence-gathering and there is no need for terrorism-specific courts to deal with it. That is naive though. Because, when handling terrorism, the government is dealing with paramilitary organizations, and it is only feasible to establish paramilitary courts and intelligence apparatus to deal with the problem. So it is important that we identify the culprits in this issue, and it is not the the telecom companies that are merely complying. It is the government.

CONTINUED..

[hiNY]

Currently, you will not be able to target the government over this issue anyways, and the already-expired fisa took care what ever occurred prior to this point.

[macbabe]

Good KO if anyone interested
"I don't do cowering"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677#25379419

[buckygreen]

I've thought it through, and I'm through donating money to someone who can't/won't defend the Constitution.

[hiNY]

Every one here seems to be posting nontechnical comments. I fail to understand the reason for their anger. First of all, if anyone expected Obama to agree with them, or any other person or idealogical group, all the time and on all issues, then I should say, saddle up because you are bound to be dismayed one too many times. This man has maverick tendencies and is highly logical and WE SHOULD NOT expect him to sheepishly adapt the dems or the left's position all the time.

When it comes to fisa though, everybody needs to take a deep breath and decipher the tandem nature of the bill. If the bill passes without immunity for the telecom comp., it will be useless. Because the telecom comp. will not cooperate with the goverment, we should not expect them to, without any assurance about the legality of the cooperation. However, one might argue about the whole bill and say it is unwarranted, saying that the civilian criminal justice courts can deal with terrorism-related intelligence-gathering and there is no need for terrorism-specific courts to deal with it. That is naive though. Because, when handling terrorism, the government is dealing with paramilitary organizations, and it is only feasible to establish paramilitary courts and intelligence apparatus to deal with the problem. So it is important that we identify the culprits in this issue, and it is not the the telecom companies that are merely complying. It is the government.

CONTINUED..

[JustSaying]

The lack of immunity would not stop wiretapping. They have always been able to wiretap, they just had to get a warrant in a timely matter, not necessarily before. They could start wiretapping and get the warrant later. This has been dedunked. We were not less safe if they didn't pass this bill. Immunity for the telecoms is CYA for bush. He doesn't want any trials because it would become known that he asked them to spy BEFORE 9/11.

[watchingthings]

"security trumps suing phone companies" .......and spying on it's citizens is a tool of dictatorships to gain more power over it's citizens.

[nomobull]

and if nothing is done bush will keep doing that illegally

[antaeus]

Whadyathink? Will Keith have Jonathan Turley on again Friday lamenting the constitution, or will he be spinning for the nominee?

[nomobull]

i think you need a clue.

[antaeus]

I always welcome clues. Answers even more.

[ohmercy]

i noticed they have all been reticent if not completely silent on this. It seems much more important to analyze the "tepid" comment by Bill's spokesman over and over and over... or Hillary's campaign debt (though no mention of her GE warchest he will get in return of course)over and over and over.

Nothing about Feingold or Dodd, Leahy or Schumer.

sigh.
media as usual.

[mrmemory]

Turns out he's a typical politician like all the others. He lies and says anything he needs to in order to get people to smile. As the campaign goes on Americans will become increasingly disillusioned as they realize he isn't the second coming. Lies, lies, lies....

[smoo]

He never said that he was the second coming. Lies, lies, lies.. Where, where, where. I have not heard a lie. I see someone make an adult decision despite what the "kids" have got to say.

I am not calling anyone here a kid. But I tell my children things like, when we get to the beech you all can go swimming. OK we are at the beech now and a damn hurricane is looming, and sharks are swimming in the pool try to escape. Guess what, the kids aint going swimming. Period. When the kids ask why. I general say. "Because I said so. "

I am sure that his security advisors have made it clear that these tools are necessary, maybe not sufficient, but necessary for our security. Do you know what someone who understands our networks can do? We are talking about the country's entire communication network! Is he really suppose to give a rats ass about what somebody said to their grandmother about the pictures found under the couch. Or some guy cheating his wife, or someone woman having phone sex.

Really I use my phone all the time. I don't give a damn if the government is listening. I just don't. At any given micro second, theirs more than 250,000,000 messages transmitted.

[Sabreen60]

Well since you believe Nader was comments were correct, we know exactly where you're coming from.

[Chillinout]

Why does it seem that the long, well thought out posts don't make on here, and yet we have this tr0ll garbage on here?

Just wondering, HuffPo mods.

[macbabe]

they have one hard-a$$ scrub monkey on here lol

[Chillinout]

I know, that post up there made it on here in about a mili-second from now on I am going to copy the long posts and repost them if they don't show up in a reasonable amount of time.