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

[Danigirl65]

I personally trust Barack's judgement on this one. I've read a bit more about the bill and, although it is sloppy, it actually does fix some problems and reinstate the constitutionality of FISA. I will give you, it is not a perfect solution, but it is the beginning of a solution which is WAY better than the way it sits now.

I have three things for doubters to remember:

A. Obama was a lecturer in Constitutional Law. I think he knows a better than most what our constitution truly means, hence his support of the second amendment and the values with which it was written. A little different than the average Democrat.

B. If we trust this man to be President of the United States, shouldn't we trust him to make a judgement that, though unpopular with us, is the best choice at the moment for us. Has George W really left us this cynical??

C. If we elect Obama and it doesn't work out, are we really worse off than we have been for the last eight years? A McCain presidency will ensure we will be.

Think about it folks

[Probus]

If Reid can stand against the FISA bill then so can Obama. Reid and the majority of the dems in the House not voting for this bill are providing a political cover for Obama. He should take it. His stance on this issue and today's SCOTUS decision on the death penalty are worrying. I will continue to support his campaign but I wish he would find another way to look stronger on terrorism.

[nomobull]

the fact that Reid is against should make you ask more questions considering the job he's done so far.

[smoo]

Reid is not running for President. Obama is. Reid is not running to be commander-­and-cheif, Obama is. Reid is a good fella, but Majority Leader Harry Reid voted to authorize the war. Dig that. Obama is making very clear, that is is not a puppet. He is making it clear that he is way more serious about this presidency thing than most of think. Surely he is running to address the concerns issues of the people, but is is not going to be irresponsible in the process. Hell, Bush was suppose to do somethings. Just because Bush did it don't make it wrong. If he would have voted the otherway on this he would be accuse of pandering. He took a position and it is very clear to me that he understands the position that he took. He is a lawyer and apparently a clever one. By the way, "clever" does not equate to "typical" politician. We McCain talks, especially when he has to defend his position, its clear that he is toating the party line. When Obama talks on the otherhand, particularly about legal issues, you can tell that not only does he understand the real point, he understands technical flaws.

[Probus]

Obama is seeing this vote in purely a political context. He needs to see the long term effects of this FISA bill. If someone like Reid who voted for the IWR can vote against this bill then so can Obama. This vote will come back to haunt Obama, he's wrong on this vote.

[olivia]

This reminds me of why Dennis Kucinich was my first choice.

Unless Dodd, Feingold or Kucinich suddenly become available, Obama still has my vote.

Neither McCain nor Hillary will send this p.o.s. bill to the shredder, either.

[GingerB]

K was my choice, too, but I never thought he'd get anywhere near the nomination­... our loss.

I'll vote for O, but I won't be volunteering and donating again in the near future, if at all.

[egal]

Speaking not as a Dem but as a soldier whose job it was to ensure such laws were followed at our level:

this is B.S.

The law was clear, easily employed, and in no way even remotely lessened our security or decreased our ability to detect or observe or spy upon terrorists.

The only thing this bill actually does is to reward some corporations for obeying the president when he was doing something egregiously illegal, unconstitutional, and detrimental to our liberty.

Perhaps Obama is simply ill-informed? Regardless, this was never about suing, nor even remotely about security, but was very much about the constitution and presidential accountability, both of which suffer for the passage of this hypocrisy.

[JayeSF]

We are all trying to figure out why this bill was supported by a vast number of Dems. We are listening to explanations from Pelosi, Obama, et. al. And...thos­e explanations just don't add up...they just don't make a whole lotta sense. Oftentimes, they have contradictions built right into them.

And we are really racking our brains to somehow rationaliz­e...why ? How ?

But instead of coming from it at THAT angle...le­t's ask the Q from the reverse.

And first, remember that these folks are politicians.

Keep that in mind...THE­N ask the question like THIS:

Why would a Democrat vote for a bill which allows/forgives (and therefore tacitly approves of) illegal/unethical activity which they are already on the record as steadfastly opposing ?

Why would the Demos do this ?

Why would they approve a bill which would result in getting those civil cases dropped and stopped, ASAP ? Why ?

Try this: Because, if those cases proceed, something will be revealed that the Democratic party doesn't want to be revealed.

There's your answer. Political self-interest. My guess is (and it ain't really going out on much of a limb)...ke­y Dems gave their consent to this whole fiasco a long time ago...and that's the LAST thing the Democrats would need to be revealed in this election. (I remind you I have been fervently supporting Obama).

Blog member aurora wrote, earlier: "Great efforts are being made to keep something from being exposed."

There is an answer....

[darthdarcy]

Telecom Immunity aside do people realize the government the executive branch can order and wiretap or eavesdrop or data mine anyone for 67 days without a warrant, no warrant at all for 67 days unabated, that is a drastic change in our rights and protections and also eviscerates the 4th Amendment as it has stood for over 200 years...

[smoo]

HOLD YOUR HORSES. THIS DEBATE IS NOT WORTH THE DISTRACTION.

His senate buddies are going to stop it while he runs around the back to the in zone. There is no need to give the republicans an opportunity to claim week on security. He has to support a solid security structure. If people are using our phone lines to possibly conduct terrorist activities the intelligence community needs to know about it. It's not the framework, its how the framework is being used.

CONSIDER THIS:
If the police took my car to catch a crook and in the process drove through several buildings and wrecked a bunch of civilian property, why should those civilians and business owners be allowed to sue me? It makes no sense.

[GingerB]

The telecoms who cooperated with BushC0 were willingly complicit. There was no accident.

[Probus]

It's not a distraction. This bill gives immunity to telecoms who broke the law otherwise they wouldn't need the immunity in the first place. There is a way to keep the country safe and honor the Constitution. This bill doesn't do that.

[smoo]

How did the telecoms break the law. Maybe I am missing something. May I need to read up on the details but from my understand this is the governments program. Telecoms on and manage the communication networks that the FCC regulates and allocates ownership rights. Our phone lines are not really owned by any particular company.

If the government took my car, what am I suppose to do. Say no you don't have a right to take my car to catch that suicide bomber. I don't car who he blows up, this is my car and you don't have the right. Smart move right?

Again, I may have problems with this. I agree with what people say around here most of the time, and maybe I am out of the pocket on this one. But I have a friend that runs an ISP and I don't think it fair for him to face a law suite becuase the government tap in to his systems to filter calls.

If his employees did it that's one thing, but that does not appear to be the case.

[Changeling]

They COULDN'T sue you. They NEVER could.

But you could all sue the police department.

Except with this, the Feds are, of course, immune.

This is the problem people are having, I think. After this bill passes there will be no forum for redress of grievances­...violati­on of rights. It's like NO ONE in government cares what happened. Or, by doing this, sees anything wrong with it.

[Chillinout]

Actually under those circumstances you couldn't sue the police either.

[Tom95134]

However, if you gave the car to the police with the understanding that they wouldn't use it to destroy the lives of other people then you should be held responsible. Especially if the police had other means to legally catch the crook.

[AdLib]

smoo, you may have the best of intentions but you are very poorly informed.

A preliminary vote was held today and only 15 Senators opposed the bill, 80 approved which is way more than needed to overcome a filibuster. The bill is a done deal.

Also your example is way out in left field. Offering immunity to entities after the fact of 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.

Nothing personal, I appreciate your support of 0bama, you're just a bit off base in this post.

[greejambri]

Look, I support Obama, and I'll vote for him, but I AM disappointed about this. Way too right-of-center for me.

[mybelovedcountry]

Obama is maturing in front of our very eyes...all­ow the legislature to oppose the bill and take the higher ground one of the many difficult a president has to take.

[Krispi]

I smell a rat.... We've always had security using the old FISA set of rules only the Bush Administration wanted to go around them and not follow procedure. If needed the goverment could always go ahead and begin the wire tap and follow up with the details in a timely manner.
Why then does Senator Obama use the same reasoning as the law breakers that an "attack" could occur and we would have been able to discover it..... if only we didn't have to go thru channels.
I suppose Senator Obama doesn't want to reduce the power of the President to do pretty much what ever he wants whenever he pleases.
There is no sign of change here.

[BigLib]

Love how Libs rationalize Barry selling them out to win an election.. How's the view from under the bus?

[olivia]

Because McCain is going to reject telecomm immunity? If you know something, do tell.

[Changeling]

How's the view from McSame's Straight Jacket Express?

As much as this is a disappointment, I can only imagine how quickly my freedoms would erode under Palpatine.

[GingerB]

If anyone knows about being thrown under a bus, it's you, BigBushbot.

[fiona2]

But is the debate really about immunity for the telecom companies or about setting precedent to excuse accountability for any entitiy which has infringed upon the Constitutional rights of Americans.­?. The people will accept FISA if the law is truly used wisely, fairly,and justly, but they will condemn any abuses, and this is what our leaders and representatives need to speak to....exac­tly what gaurantees can they gives us that abuses will not occur,? and if they have already occurred, what can be done to correct the situation so further abuses do not occur in the future? Trading privacy and conveniece for security is not a big deal, but trading the Constitutuion is and the voters deserve reasonable and definable guarantees.

[smoo]

I agree. As the adage goes, "You don't throw the baby out with the bath water"

[FACINGREALIT]

You are a wise and educated person who understands the constitution - how many of the voting public would understand what you've just stated. How many could be convinced that Back is weak on Terrorism? That is the problem for Barack. The Polls show that the only area McCain beats him in is Security! This Bill will not meet the smell test of the SCOTUS vs4 th Amendment rights. There are not enough voters who could truly process this issue effectively enough for Barack to vote NO - all they will process is that he is WEAK ON SECURITY! This Bill is a Repug distraction and a CYA FOR THEIR CRIMES AGAINST AMERICANS.

[fiona2]

good point

[fiona2]

Well I think the voters could decipher the difference, but I do agree that the media and the opposition will make it look as though Obama is weak on security. The Republicans have won the last two campaigns based on security and the Dems should address ths issue/ Obama is an intelligent man and I have fath in his ability to find a solution to this problem..H­e just needs to more clearly define what he plans to do to protect our Constituional rights.

[southernsepia]

This is simple minded, politically immature foolishness.

The repubs are trolling here trying to get you folks riled up and you've fallen for it.

He must win to make change.

Keep screaming constitutional rights, when the other guy wins in Nov. you'll need the practice.

[Sabreen60]

You are exactly right.

[gladys46]

True.

[Sabreen60]

Oh ye of little faith or you must be tr0lls. There is always the possibility that criminal actions can be taken later on. So you who call yourselves Dems just throw him under the bus. I haven't seen you marching in the streets protesting this illegal war. I haven't seen you protesting in the streets about any of the criminal acts of the Bu$h administration. But the first time an issue arises that you disagree with you throw 0bama under the bus. Well if that's all it takes then go ahead and cop out. I will send my donation tomorrow.

[AbbieXHoffman]

You have no idea why the taking away civilians ability to sue in civil cases is so bad, do you?

It is so bad because it takes away the last and final place where justive lives--with the people of this country. When all three branches of govt' screw up, the people still retain the ability to hold others accountable with civil trials. If these companies did something illegal against civilians (which they did) the wronged people can and should take them to task through the due process of law. it is through due process that the truth and justice is found. The judges and/jury would likely consider the request the govt made, but by denying the due process of law, the govt is spitting on justice.

It also sets precedent that if any president asks someone to do something illegal, they will knowing they will be protected. How does that make us any better than facists regimes?

[Sabreen60]

I don't need you to talk down to me or be condescending. I understand perfectly what I have written. I am not a one issue person and this issue will not cause me to denounce Sen. 0bama. Do you not know the President will not longer have the power that Bu$h now has under this compromise. If you choose not to vote for 0bama because of this issue - more power to you. But just because others may not agree with you doesn't mean they have not the power of reason. Shove it.

[wry]

Abbie, what is so bad is the gross number of people who will vote for Obama like they'll vote for their favorite on Dancing with the Stars. They don't have any idea why this is so utterly wrong.
Aside from the fact that if he is so far ahead in the polls, why can't he show some courage?

[FACINGREALIT]

The Bill can be changed under a new administration - PLEASE stop being so naive - aren't the taxes for the rich being rolled back under the Democrats? This is a ploy by the Repugs to put SECURITY AT THE FOREFRONT of another election. Where was the need for this Bill before this election? Why now? Because the Repugs know they are going to lose and they are trying any and everything to win. They want Barack to vote NO so they can tout his perceived weakness on Terroism!

[Danigirl65]

LOVE YA' SABREEN!!! Spoken very well - like a true Obama supporter!!!

p.s. I sent my June donation last week, the July one is just around the corner.

[walk0nwalls]

You know... whatever

Once again we're not listened to, I get it.