Jim Webb: Spy Bill Too Complicated For Some Bloggers

The Seminal:

The following exchange took place on the eve of the FISA vote, July 8th, between myself and Virginia Senator James Webb.

Josh Nelson: You mentioned the role the blogosphere played in your Senate campaign. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that a little bit. And also tell us what type of role you would like to see them play in legislative fights in the future.

Jim Webb: The blogs... the good news and bad news about blogs. First the bad news. The bad news is anybody can say anything about someone and they don't even have to put their name on it. In fact, the anonymity encourages irresponsibility. And it is pretty frustrating, I'll be honest with you, that's why I just stopped reading this stuff a long time ago.

...

Josh Nelson: Are you talking about FISA?

Jim Webb: Specifically I'm thinking about FISA since I have to vote on it tomorrow afternoon.

(laughter)

That's a very complicated issue and I've looked at it from every single angle that it can be looked at. Having had the black clearances that we were talking about, and at the same time I'm very strong on privacy rights. It's not an issue that is easy to boil down in the way a lot of the blogging community has boiled it down.

Read the whole story: The Seminal

Comments

[harriscrl3]

Why am I not surprise. There is always two sides to an issue. I listen to representative on Verdict and he clarified some things like for example this is not a new bill this is something thats been on the books BEFORE 911. I dont understand the particulars of it and have been doing some research since there are many of Obama's so called supporters who didnt get where he stood on a lot of issues and who didnt figure him out as a candidate my guess is that they dont understand this Fisa issue either. Americans are not very bright Bloggers are no different. For one thing from reading some of the post they dont even understand nuances.

Carol

[Helzapoppin]

If you did understand the particulars, you would know that what that representative said was a lie.

[Liam]

FISA as a law has been on the books for years. But FISA as it existed has not expired. What expired in February was a temporary and insane expansion of FISA which basically gave the Executive Branch the right to entirely ignore the fourth amendment. There was token oversight, but that oversight was in the form of sealed documents that the secret FISA court was not even allowed to open, unless the specific instance of spying was challenged, something that was unlikely to happen because it's hard to prove you've actually been spied upon, and without that proof, the courts have said you have no right to sue.

That "temporary" expansion of FISA expired in February, and *THAT* is what Bush has been whining about, trying to convince us that the already-qu­estionable secret court oversight that has been on the books since the 1970s and has served the country reasonably well is still too much oversight for him to have to deal with.

Bush really does see himself as a temporary king and doesn't see the need for him to have to respect pesky little things like laws or our rights, or the co-equality of the other two branches of the Federal government.

If you want to have a debate on the original FISA bill, I'm happy to do it. But this new amendment to it removes a whole lot of the very minimal oversight protection of the original bill, and in return gives us precious little.

Liam.

[AdamND]

I'm a progressive and I agree with Webb. The problems that my fellow progressives has is that they would polotically kill themselves and hand McCain the White House over FISA alone.

[ChristianEcon.com]

I don't see a case for immunity resistance killing anyone politically. Polls show most Americans didn't care about FISA, so it wouldn't have been a political loss for Obama, Webb, et. al. to act with integrity.

[nomobull]

so if they don't care why are so many like you trying to force things your way. maybe its not that they don't care but decide to wait and see or trusted that the decision wasn't made lightly or shock of shocks reused to whole one responsible for the actions of many.

[GolfingDevil05]

Glad to see someone else as tired as I am of the propensity for self-immolation that we have as progressives. Barack Obama has to WIN before he can GOVERN, and the alternative to him as president is John McCain. How does that advance a progressive agenda?

[colleen2]

Having recently spent a fair amount of time trying to comb through the mass of deliberate falsehoods and rampant ignorance the 'faith' based community uses to justify using federal dollars to overtly proselytize under the guise of 'helping the poor' I must say that I think Jim Webb has it right about bloggers.
OTOH (and sadly) the same thing can be said about the various members of Congress who frequently get it completely wrong. Take their votes authorizing the invasion and occupation of Iraq, for instance..­...I'm sure that Webb would agree that this was surely a rather notable instance where many bloggers and surprisingly few Senators got it right.

[ChristianEcon.com]

Agree--being able to speak one's mind with anonymity would encourage open and free speech generally. Why lament that? We need forums where people aren't bound to political correctness, not stepping on Boss's toes, not feeling the need to play to the middle, etc., etc.

[colleen2]

"Why lament that? "

Because, for some people, the anonymity is used as an excuse to lie and bully. For instance, the so-called Christians were unable to admit that the 'faith' based initiatives are simply an excuse to overtly proselytize and mainly benefit themselves, not the poor.
It's been my experience that what the right maligns as 'political correctness' is usually just plain, basic good manners or a decent respect for those who aren't white, male and conservative.

[ibsteve2u]

"Black clearances" - that makes me laugh. It is always "black" something or other..."b­lack ops"..."bl­ack budget"...­and now "black clearances".

What a use of an adjective - is that some political way to fool yourself into thinking you aren't really talking about something you know you aren't supposed to be talking about?

More to the point - the bill should have been simple:

A) Who you can wire tap
B) Under what circumstances
C) All cases to be reviewed by X authority prior to wiretap except in "Y" well-defined circumstances
D) All cases to be reviewed periodically by X authority for permission to continue to wiretap
E) All wiretaps AND results to be reviewed by "Z" authority at some fixed interval in order to confirm justifications and to detect patterns of abuse
F) Penalties for abuse and/or exceeding the authority granted by the law

Now if Congress failed to make it simple and clear, that isn't the bloggers' fault - it is Congress' fault for not remembering that most basic of all rules: The people who insert the most clauses and most obtuse and obscure language into any rule or law are those who are intentionally setting up escape clauses for themselves for actions that they are already planning.

[SouthFloridaDem]

Of course it's Congress' fault. Your simple bill outline reminded me of Andy Rooney's concept of a five-step simple tax return from years ago:

1. How much did you make?
2. How much did it cost you to make it?
3. Subtract 2 from 1.
4. Take 10 percent of the result.
5. Write check and mail it.

Our tax code, of course, is some 60,000+ pages long. So bills aren't simple, and constitutional law experts have said that the FISA bill is way badly written. So no, I don't expect to understand every bit of it. But I trust Webb to understand it, and I certainly trust Obama. So while I do feel disappointment at the bill's passage, I'm not getting my knickers in a twist about it. I think there's more to it in terms of fixing it than we know.

[LeftHandedBrain]

Pesky 4th amendment. It's soooo complicated!

[Sumocat]

Apparently so. The Bill of Rights specifically protects us against government abuse, and "us" includes private companies. The telecoms are victims of government abuse, same as everyone else. All this jabber about prosecuting them distracts us from the real violators, namely the NSA that did the spying and President Bush who authorized it.

[memoryaid]

HEAR HEAR.

[Nardwilly]

I have been trying to make this point also. The phone companies are not the problem. It is the people we elect. Change the people change the policy.

[reasonlives]

sumocat, the govt violated the 4th Amend. Telecoms violated federal statute, exposing them both to criminal (felony) exposure and civil liability under existing law ,which Congress abrogated as a favor to politically powerful corporations. Telecoms also breached their contractual obligations to their paying customers, and even if you dont care about your rights, others might care about theirs.

[ChristianEcon.com]

Yeah we all know Verizon and AT&T couldn't afford legal counsel, when asked to illegally spy on Americans without Americans' knowledge or consent. It's not the telecoms' fault. They needed immunity from doing nothing illegal though.

(Just more "jabber.")

No, I think the tel's just thought the neocon corporate welfare gravy-train--in all its wondrous facets--was going to go on for a while.

Of course, it turns out they were right, thanks to the Neocons-in­-Democrats­-clothing they've been able to so easily buy off.

[Helzapoppin]

BULL. The telecoms were climbing over each other to do the Bush administration's bidding because there were very juicy high dollar contracts involved. Helpless victims of the Bushies? Hahahahahahahaha

[LeftHandedBrain]

Pesky 4th amendment. It's soooo complicated.

[gvc]

Americans are all too ready to accept paraphrasals or single-word characterizations (or mischaract­erizations­) of documents, essays, speeches and positions.

I have been shocked (even more than usual) by the vacuous labels that have been thrown around and accepted without challenge by masses of people: "capitulation" on FISA, "unconsitu­tionality" of FISA (that's for the courts to decide; if it is it can't be legislated), "moving to the center," etc.

These labels and characterizations are so terse as to be meaningless, and are often misleading.

Instead of repeating them, lets read original documents, speeches and essays and cite them in reference to specific issues.

I'll start. In the following post.

[gvc]

The B. administration carried out illegal wiretaps. Articles of impeachment have been read in the house over this and other matters, but will languish. Even if the house impeached, Senate would never convict. So there's a legitimate debate as to whether one should pursue a losing case just for posterity.

Given that the real perpetrator cannot be prosecuted (at least during his term in office) for breaking the law, is the law irrelevant? Not totally so, but lets be clear that the FISA bill will have no impact whatsoever on the current admin. -- it will continue to do exactly what it wants with impunity.

One has to pick ones battles. Is FISA a good one to spend a whole bunch of energy on at this time? Obviously some bloggers think it is. Personally, I think that civil liberties are in serious trouble regardless of what it says in the FISA bill, and that it is way more important to get rational judges on the supreme court than to exhaust one's self on whether or not the protections in the FISA bill are adequate.

And while I believe that prospective immunity would be a bad idea, it is not being offered. Just retroactive, and hence no promise in the future. I'd sooner it weren't there, but that's not what the future of civil liberty depends on. What it depends on is reasonable oversight of the executive branch, and strong measures to prevent the executive branch from controlling the judicial branch.

[memoryaid]

Thank you for a well thought out comment!

[ChristianEcon.com]

I see a lot of people pitting resisting immunity against political expediency, when I don't see a case for it. Polls show Americans for the most part don't even care about FISA, and are generally unaware of ramifications, etc., so how much of acting w. integrity in support of accountability, the constitution, and the rule of law would've even registered?

The integrity issue (especially Obama's right now) *is* seeping in via MSM though. I think playing to the middle, for example, is a huge loser politically as a strategy, because everyone's (with MSM endorsement) onto it and looking for it. I think *that* is getting across via MSM and will hurt Obama and the Dems if it hasn't already.

Obama's perceived loss of integrity is *huge.* I think he had a much better opportunity to simply pull people left with the appeal he was generating than play to the middle.

The political advantage is probably lobby money from the telecoms. Sad, sad, and sad.

[Liam]

Actually, if you read the text of the bill, it is not entirely clear that the immunity is only retroactive.

And while I agree with you that civil liberties are in trouble, and even see your point on the "if we can't get the guy responsible, and if the vote won't really change his behavior, what does it really matter", my feeling is that we're never going to get back to civil liberties if we don't take the little stands.

Yes, not passing this FISA modification would not have changed the behavior of the Administration, and yes, it probably wouldn't have changed whether any prosecutions ever took place.

But it would send the message that Congress, at least, values the law and civil liberties over an imperial Presidency, at least to the extent of not giving their tacit stamp of approval to the things he has done.

Sometimes the moral victories are the only ones you get, but without those moral victories, who is even going to fight the more meaningful battles yet to come?

Liam.

[meanguy]

okay, so to recap...th­ose who disagree with obama's vote on the issue are just too freaking dumb to understand­...that about cover it, jim????

[wadenelson1]

Count me in. I'm just too dumb to understand these things. I need someone smarter than me, preferably a politician, to make up my mind for me.....

ON DIRECT ASSAULTS ON THE 4TH AMENDMENT.

[memoryaid]

You now sound as "limited" as the 2nd amendment screamers that are pissed they don't get to walk down the street with a Uzi.

[CtJean]

Oh give it up!

READ THE DANG BILL ALREADY !!

Or is your attention span equal to the length of the average blog comment?

(I forgot ... apology to meanguy .... you have NO attention span)

[JimR]

He said nothing of the kind. My, you are so delicate and sensitive.

[SeanGardner]

Thanks Mr. Webb for bringing some clarity to this issue. Many in the blogosphere were calling for Obama's head on the FISA Bill. That was incredibly unfair. And what wasn't reported were the new changes to the law that actually required approval. In fact, Rep. Adam Smith (my congressman) who is an Obama supporter, talked about it on Dan Abrams last week.

And things got so ridiculous that HUFFPOST's Bob Ostertag convinced some Obama supporters to give their July money Obama money to Feingold instead over frustration with Obama's position. Ridiculous. And now that THE NEW YORKER ran their ridiculous and bizarre cover with the Obama's, bloggers should realize that the over-reaction to FISA cost Obama some much needed money to fight the smears that will surely grow more intense.

Webb is right.

[ibsteve2u]

Perhaps the motivation behind "The New Yorkers" cover was simply venal - McCain, after all, is seen to be the person who will help the rich get richer the fastest - and the best hope of America's wealthy when it comes to changing estate tax laws.

Consider:

1) "The New Yorker" is run by Conde Nast
2) Conde Nast is owned by Advance Publications
3) Who runs Advance Publications?

Samuel I. Newhouse [Chairman & CEO]
Donald E. Newhouse [President]

4) And what happened in 1979 http://ketupa.com/advance2.htmm)?

[bq]

1979 death of Samuel I Newhouse. Family claims estate is worth US$182m, taxable at US$48m. US government claims estate is worth US$1.2bn, seeks US$658m tax plus US$305m penalty.

[eq]

His descendents still own Advance.

I would venture that the Newhouse family - and by extension, "The New Yorker", might prefer that Obama not win.

You certainly can't tell me that the "New Yorker" editorial staff does not understand that every leader of every biggoted, Klannish organization in America will be waving that issue around in their meetings saying:

"See! even those [insert various ethnic and racial slurs here] in New York City say exactly what I am telling you!".

[VSamuels]

After Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin and thrust this nation into the beginning of the industrial age, America became synonomous with 'money.' And while I don't know the details of the Newhouses, it would seem that they would probably more than likely be concerned with those things you've outlined. The estate tax provision in the law will basically go to 0 in 2011, I believe, then it reverts back to the previous rates; if a republican isn't in office to keep it low or non-existent.

[CtJean]

THANK YOU SeanGardner - Well said!

[jackie4444]

We can be grateful that Webb has removed himself from consideration as VP, and hope that he
will not surface in another position, other than veteran's affairs, should Obama prevail. There were some excellent point-by-point analyses done by 'named' bloggers on FISA, using the actual language of the text. One has to wonder if Webb ever read them before reaching his conclusions and casting his aye vote. Same for Obama. Same for McCaskill. Webb would be well-served to learn sooner than later that telling voters that things are just 'too complicated' for them to understand is not going to cut any ice in the future. Been there. Done that.

[LeRoyHolt]

I believe the headline does actually what Sen Webb suggested about bloggers ..... misrepresenting what he said in the interest of promoting your own views in this case. I assume that's why no quotation marks in the headlines ....

Let us not fall prey to using the techniques of our enemies... Sen Webb, thus far, has shown great courage in fighting the good fight... shall we tear down a friend as we transition out of the mindless trashing of our Constitution?

For the record... I am against amnesty for the telecom's.­... They violated the Constituti­on... they knew it when asked...

I am against amnesty for George Bush and his complete staff... they violated the Constitution and they knew it when they asked the telecom's to participat­e.... more strongly brought to light when Qwest refused. I wonder if Qwest's government contracts has suffered because of it.?.. and if they should not sue for lost revenue

No one should be pardoned or exempt from prosecutio­n.......

[Independent voter]

On Sunday the Obama camp called me asking for another $500 donation. I told that that I couldn't talk because my phone was tapped.

[judyc]

Wow--that's hysterical.

McCain didn't even vote--ducked the whole issue--are you gonna' donate to him?

[strifeknot]

A weak retort, O-bot, and a fallacious leap in logic.

[foreffectivegovernment]

First Obama says we weren't listening when he explained that he was really Centrist in his ideas and not Progressive. Now Webb says we are not smart enough to understand FISA. Aren't they telling us we are too dumb to realize we have been duped by the politicans again?

[JimR]

Webb said nothing of the kind.

[foreffectivegovernment]

Your comment proves he was right about some bloggers being too dumb to understand both FISA AND what Webb said in this article.

[lawchic]

I think that you are mischaraterizing both of the Senator's statements. First, I think that problem with Obama is that many saw him as the second coming of a Progressive and he is not that at all. He is actually in the center on several positions, and this is clear from his Illinois record, past interviews, speeches, and books. But it seems that people either heard what they wanted to hear, or expected him to be totally in line with all of the Left's positions, even though he has clearly stated he is not an idealogue. As far as Sen. Webb's comments, I think that he was pointing out the FISA issue is not as Black and White as some people have made it. Even if you disagree with FISA, by simply saying, 4th Amendment, 4th Amendment, simply doesn't cover it.

[loucreattie]

Great post!

[foreffectivegovernment]

lawchic: Your comment proves what I have said all along. Barack Obama was presented as a "Blank Slate: and people without experience in the political game were allowed to vote based on what they saw in him. David Axelrod sold us a dud as proven by events in recent weeks. What can we Democrats do to rectify the situation we find ourselves in now?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

In a way.

In an indirect way so that we won't realize it and will continue to give money.

[coba]

i agree im a blogger i agree with the FISA descision and these other bloggers that blog about it and complain about dont get it. they dont understand the provision in the bill all they know is vote or not vote but they dont understand the ins and outs of the fisa bill sensico.wordpress.com

[Liam]

OK, so can you tell me what I'm missing? I wrote up my understanding of the whole bill and the history of FISA on my blog www.liamjohnson.nett) and came to the conclusion that this wasn't as vital as they'd been telling us, certainly not vital enough to justify not taking the time to be absolutely sure it was both Constitutional and properly protective of civil liberties.

Liam.

[Liam]

OK, I just skimmed through your blog back through the beginning of June and I don't see anything about FISA at all, except a keyword relating to an article about Google.

I've done a lot of reading on the topic, I think I have a pretty good understanding of it, and I don't agree with the FISA at all, even without telecom immunity. With it, it's just a travesty of anti-Const­itutionali­ty.

Now, you seem pretty convinced that I'm wrong. So please, tell me what I'm not understanding. I'm the first to admit it's very possible I'm missing something, and I'm always actively trying to fill in gaps in my knowledge.

So please, if you think you've got a better understanding of the bill and such than I, please step up and tell me.

Liam.

[rollingdivision]

Personal political expediency is the only reason for his change and support for an Expanded FISA bill with retroactive corporate immunity. Nothing changed the facts about FISA only he changed.

[memoryaid]

You're right, the facts didn't change. The FISA bill itself changed.

Now go build another strawman.

[Lemeritus]

I'm going to have to get rollingdivision's back on this one. Webb's paternalistic concerns for the unschooled plebiscite aside, Obama's about-face was dramatic and startling:

From this: "Senator Obama unequivocally opposes giving retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies and has cosponsored Senator Dodd's efforts to remove that provision from the FISA bill. Granting such immunity undermines the constitutional protections Americans trust the Congress to protect."

To this: "There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay."

That seems pretty "equivocal" to me.

[rollingdivision]

Yes, the new bill expanded legal domestic spying.