Is Obama Selling Out on FISA bill?

Is Obama being a shrewd pol or selling out civil liberties?

That's the question raised by Glenn Greenwald's tough new column taking Obama to task for supporting the bogus "compromise" bill condemned by the ACLU, the New York Times and most of the liberal blogosphere.
Greenwald takes on his fellow bloggers as well:

In the past 24 hours, specifically beginning with the moment Barack Obama announced that he now supports the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer House bill, there have magically arisen -- in places where one would never have expected to find them -- all sorts of claims about why this FISA "compromise" isn't really so bad after all. People who spent the week railing against Steny Hoyer as an evil, craven enabler of the Bush administration -- or who spent the last several months identically railing against Jay Rockefeller -- suddenly changed their minds completely when Barack Obama announced that he would do the same thing as they did. What had been a vicious assault on our Constitution, and corrupt complicity to conceal Bush lawbreaking, magically and instantaneously transformed into a perfectly understandable position, even a shrewd and commendable decision, that we should not only accept, but be grateful for as undertaken by Obama for our Own Good.

Accompanying those claims are a whole array of factually false statements about the bill, deployed in service of defending Obama's indefensible -- and deeply unprincipled -- support for this "compromise." Numerous individuals stepped forward to assure us that there was only one small bad part of this bill -- the part which immunizes lawbreaking telecoms -- and since Obama says that he opposes that part, there is no basis for criticizing him for what he did. Besides, even if Obama decided to support an imperfect bill, it's our duty to refrain from voicing any criticism of him, because the Only Thing That Matters is that Barack Obama be put in the Oval Office, and we must do anything and everything -- including remain silent when he embraces a full-scale assault on the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law -- because every goal is now subordinate to electing Barack Obama our new Leader.

It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this "compromise" bill is the telecom amnesty part. It's true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill's expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions. The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.

The ACLU specifically identifies the ways in which this bill destroys meaningful limits on the President's power to spy on our international calls and emails. Sen. Russ Feingold condemned the bill on the ground that it "fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home" because "the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power." Rep. Rush Holt -- who was actually denied time to speak by bill-supporter Silvestre Reyes only to be given time by bill-opponent John Conyers -- condemned the bill because it vests the power to decide who are the "bad guys" in the very people who do the spying.

This bill doesn't legalize every part of Bush's illegal warrantless eavesdropping program but it takes a large step beyond FISA towards what Bush did. There was absolutely no reason to destroy the FISA framework, which is already an extraordinarily pro-Executive instrument that vests vast eavesdropping powers in the President, in order to empower the President to spy on large parts of our international communications with no warrants at all. This was all done by invoking the scary spectre of Terrorism -- "you must give up your privacy and constitutional rights to us if you want us to keep you safe" -- and it is Obama's willingness to embrace that rancid framework, the defining mindset of the Bush years, that is most deserving of intense criticism here.

Moveon.org is also launching an email campaign urging Obama to keep his word on supporting a filibuster to block telecom immunity:

Dear MoveOn member:

On Friday, House Democrats caved to the Bush administration and passed a bill giving a get-out-of-jail-free card to phone companies that helped Bush illegally spy on innocent Americans.1

This Monday, the fight moves to the Senate. Senator Russ Feingold says the "deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation."2 Barack Obama announced his partial support for the bill, but said, "It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."3

Last year, after phone calls from MoveOn members and others, Obama went so far as to vow to "support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."4 We need him to honor that promise.

Can you call Senator Obama today and tell him you're counting on him to keep his word? Ask him to block any compromise that includes immunity for phone companies that helped Bush break the law.

Obama's presidential campaign: [phone]

Then, help us track our progress by clicking here.

These companies helped the Bush Administration illegally spy on the emails and phone calls of innocent Americans. By giving "immunity" to these companies, all lawsuits brought against them by civil liberties groups would be thrown out of court. That means we may never find out how far Bush went in breaking the law. And once it's done, it can't be undone. That's why we need Obama to promise to block any bill that has immunity.

Supporters of today's deal say it doesn't guarantee immunityâ€"it just kicks the issue to a court to decide. But that's deceptive. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) points out:
"It gives [Bush's] attorney general the power to decide if cases against telecommunications companies will proceed. The AG only has to certify to the FISA court that the company didn't spy or did so with a permission slip from the president. A note from the president is not a legal defense. Allowing phone companies to avoid litigation by simply presenting a 'permission slip' from the president is not court review."5

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit group working with the ACLU to hold these companies accountable, adds, "whatever gloss might be put on it, the so-called 'compromise' on immunity for phone companies that broke the law is anything but a compromise...no matter how they spin it, this is still immunity, period."6

President Bush and the phone companies know that the facts are against them. A judge appointed by President Bush's father already wrote one opinion finding that "AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal."7

But we'll never know how far their illegal actions went unless we fight back now. Can you tell Barack Obama you're counting on him to keep his word and block any compromise that gives immunity to lawbreaking phone companies? Obama's presidential campaign: [phone]

Then, help us track our progress by clicking here.

Thanks for all you do,
â€"Nita, Adam G., Patrick, Ilyse, and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Saturday, June 21, 2008

Sources:

1. "George Bush's latest powers, courtesy of the Democratic Congress," Glenn Greenwald on Salon.com, June 19, 2008
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/19/telecom/index.html
2. "Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On the FISA Deal," Statement of Senator Russ Feingold, June 19, 2008
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/08/06/20080619f.htm
3. "Obama Backing FISA 'Compromise," Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central, June 20, 2008
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obama_backing_fisa_compromise.php

4. "Obama Camp Says It: He'll Support Filibuster Of Any Bill Containing Telecom Immunity," Greg Sargent at TPM Election Central, October 24, 2007
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_bill_containing_telecom_immunity.php
5. "Facts on the Senator Kit Bond's (R-Mo.) FISA Proposal," June 13, 2008
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/35652res20080613.html
6. "Prepared Statement of Eff Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston on Immunity 'Compromise,'" Electronic Frontier Foundation, June 18, 2008
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/EFF_bankston.pdf
7. "Targeting Steny Hoyer for his contempt for the rule of law," Glenn Greenwald on Salon.com, June 17, 2008
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/17/hoyer/index.html

There's nothing significant for Obama to gain in the general election if he ends up going along with the bill, and much to lose in terms of his reputation for integrity and keeping his word, so it's important to keep pressure on him to oppose the new bill, especially if it contains any telecom-favoring provision.

UPDATE: Here's Obama's rationalization for supporting the current bill, while claiming he'll work to strip it of the telecom immunity provision. What's not clear in this statement or some of the blog commentary is what he'll do regarding the measure if the telecom provision stays in. Some highlights:

It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

Unfortunately, though, the thrust of his comments is that he will support the bill as written, even though he'll support -- how, he doesn't say -- efforts to remove the telecom provision, perhaps after it's already become law:

"It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."

Sadly, we expected more from Obama than this position on critical civil liberties legislation. That's why it's important to call his campaign to urge him to follow up on his promise to back a filibuster against the telecom immunity provision. Obama's presidential campaign phone: [phone]. Let him know you'd like him to stand up against the Bush administration on this issue, showing the sort of strength that can resonate with voters in the general election.

Comments

[karela]

Obama and other lawmakers have been given security briefings that we will never know about. What if there is a real danger and we attempt to force him to ignore that danger? What if there really are disastrous results of delaying longer the government's ability to prevent attacks. I don't believe in fear mongering, but I also don't believe in being too Polly Anna about terrorist threats. The reason that I'm willing to leave this to Obama's judgement, at least as far as his own personal vote is involved, is that he has proven to me over time that his interest is the well being of Americans and that he has good judgement. I don't think that makes me a blind follower. I think it means that after many months of research and following Obama carefully, I have made a judgment that it is reasonably safe to trust him. I would feel the same if Tim Russert told me something. Some people have earned a reputation for truth telling and honesty and, for me, Obama is one of them.

[Soothsayer08]

You have some valid points. I'm still going to support him but I would like clarification if possible. Also some of the posters that have turned against him so quickly weren't supporters to begin with.

[BadCompany]

Yeah, we're all lying about *his* treachery.

[Clairvaux]

Some of the posters that have turned against him are professional trolls.

[JavaCityGal]

I too, question all these "supporters" who so quickly turned on him. I'm with you --I'd like additional clarification but I'm still a strong supporter.

[walk0nwalls]

There is no reason we should not see the exact same security briefings. Transparency is what I demand, what I EXPECTED. I do not believe in Obama enough to forgo my own judgment. I want TRANSPARENCY and I want to be able to gauge for myself the dangerousness of the threats facing us.

Facts are, regardless of the danger, the GOVERNMENT does not reserve the right to take away our rights when and as they see fit. WE THE PEOPLE do. If there is something of this importance to be determined WE THE PEOPLE need to decide. It is unfortunate that this of all issues could deflate a mountains worth of momentum for Obama. But we wanted to believe in more, and that Messianic character who could take on the world is gone.

It's such a shame.

[kissmygrits]

I agree but I just sent him a strongly-worded message on his website anyways. I feel this is a big mistake by him (and I support him tremendously).

[elizaW]

If you follow that logic then you have to allow for the possiblity that Bush has been given security briefings that we may never know about, briefings that make his decisions about Iraq less diabolical. Interesting that now you want to give Obama a get out of jail free card when you (Obama supporters) refused to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt on her position on Iraq. Just because you want to believe in something doesn't mean that Obama is the guy who deserves your trust. Think about it.

[meanguy]

'over time?' he's basically been running for president since he got into the senate...i­t's not like he's got a track record to go by

[LivingStardust]

"Messages cannot be recorded at this time. Please visit us on the web or press "0" to speak to an attendant.­"

"We're sorry. No attendants are available at this time."

SENATOR!!!!!

IF I WANTED TO BE SPIED ON SOME MORE I'D VOTE FOR THE PARTY OF TREASONOUS TRAITORS AND WANT TO GIVE BUSH A PARDON.

Get it together on FISA.

Either you're a Neocon thug who thinks pissing on the Constitution is okay or you aren't. Which is it?

If you are, I am going to go ahead and plan for a revolution today. If not, you have my vote PROVIDED you can explain this adequately. And don't use small words. I have as good or better education than you.

[xhibi]

Dido

[meanguy]

apparently, xhibi, you were home the day they covered 'ditto'

[Clairvaux]

It seems to me that a bill which immunizes unconstitutional actions is itself unconstitutional.

You can't override the constitution with a bill. You have to amend the constitution. The forces of darkness do not have the votes to amend our constitution.

The FISA bill is totally bogus.

We are counting on you Senator.

[RRK70]

As long as we continue to have a two party system we will be faced with choosing the lesser of two evils. Even in Washington, two's company, three's a crowd. The question boils down to, do you choose the lesser or two evils or do you remain an idealist? Where do we draw the line, make the stand? Life makes hypocrites of us all. I detest having to make such a decision, but what is to be gained by a McCain Administration? (I mean other than the hastening of the collapse of what was once the USA)

[AnotherTry]

When your candidate runs on a campaign of change and hope, it almost guarantees we all stay home come november due to depression. It was all a lie. As usual.

[meanguy]

psrdon the 'told you so', but..."du-­uh....."

[bbbear]

Like many here, I've written Obama a couple of notes hoping he'll filibuster this bill, and also tried to call his senate office ( mailbox full, goodbye ) and no one would pick up at the # supplied by MoveON.
It's distressing, but not yet a deal breaker... After all, for me anyway, it's either Obama or McSame...
And there's no way I'll ever again vote for another death loving repub.

[BadCompany]

What makes you think you will not be voting for a death loving Dim?
What other distressing disappointments has he got up his sleeve?

[gneebugs]

I have unsubribed at Obama's website and noted the reason was telecomm immunity and the FISA bill. It is disappointing to say the least.
And, as others have pointed out why not let the sunset provision take place and not deal with this until after the election? The motivation has to be something other than the so-called protection of America.
Let's not even discuss the absurdity of that statement.
I want to know how much money the collaborators in the House received and how much money will the Senate receive.
Once again, the majority of those in Congress has demonstrated how little their oath of office matters.
Power and money corrupts and damn the Constitution.

Truly shameful.

[Organotic]

I find it interesting that in here you have the broken hearted liberal progressives, the still-angry Hillary supporters, and the "I'm surprised that he'd vote for this, maybe he will actually protect us" McCainiacs. A bold melting pot of thoughts and opinions to say the least. Whatever the case, the first constituency should really just pull it together and untwist their panties. The objective here is to get Obama in the White House and the liberal progressives are really only a fragment of the Democratic party that votes along with all the others for different reasons. A political candidate is never going to be everything for you all the time. There are Obama policies that I disagree with, this included, but I still believe that he'd be the best person to run this country at this stage of the game. Besides, what other legislation has he passed that you are absolutely opposed to as a progressive? He's got a good track record for the most part which is more than we can assess for John W. McBush. He generally stands on principle, but lets face it, he's a politician that is running for the White House and has to make assessments on that as well. It's not an excuse, it's just the reality of the situation for better or for worse.

[BadCompany]

Some of us obviously don't see the need to give the RepubliCons what they want so that they can be defeated.
It renders the defeat meaningless.

[PortiaElizabeth]

Doesn't this just make you sad to believe this person's promises and then he lets you down? Just words?

[JavaCityGal]

Name one candidate that has fulfulled all of their promises. Go ahead, I"m waiting. Your candidate Hillary- never fulfilled her promise to my home state of NY for 200,000 jobs, we LOST jobs instead. Hmmmmm.

[shep1900]

Thank the Bush Administration for that. They cleverly destroyed every attempt she has made to do just that---and NYS has gotten screwed in the process. They've gone out of their way to cut funding and programs for New York--purely, I think, to make sure to make Senator Clinton look bad, and keep her from the White House. (she was always the candidate they feared, even if revisionist history pretends otherwise.­) The blame doesn't lie with her _or_ her fellow New York Senator--it's been a concentrated effort on the Bush Administration's part, all the way. (and I live here, too, so I'm just as aware of what's going on in this state as you are.)

[blueshift]

My disillusionment with Obama is total and complete, and he's done it in two short weeks. It makes no difference whether McCain or Obama becomes president. The government is just a marionette of corporate interests. Why bother to vote?

[BadCompany]

Don't skip voting.
Vote for a third party candidate.
That is the only way will we ever have a viable third party.

[Schallvain]

Vote Nadar!!!!

[creasdp6]

Anyone who gets emails from Obama, click on the bottom of a recent one to unsubscribe. It takes you to a page where youcen tell them why you are unsubscribing. I told them I was unsubscribing to send a message, if he fores against the bill I will sign back up and give money, if he votes for this bill they don't get anything from me. If their email list starts to shrink, and the money stops coming in he will get the message.

[jennlynnward]

There's not much we can do to stop this bill, but this small protest is at least something. I just did as you suggested.

[Researchguy66]

It's simple. Obama said what he needed to to get the nomination and now he doesn't need to pander to the left anymore. He knows that you all are so convinced that John McCain is an evil ba$taRd that you wouldn't ever consider NOT voting for Obama.

[ddharder]

It's funny how those of us who respect the principles of the constitution are now considered the "left."

I for one will stay home if he doesn't change his position on this matter. I'm sure there's enough who won't follow my lead, but this issue is way too important to compromise over.

[walk0nwalls]

Yeah how did strict consitutionalists who decry big government become "the left"?

[kissmygrits]

I know. The right used to claim the constitution, but now they have renounced it.

[Kahni]

One has to keep in mind that Mr. Research here has stated recently that he is "voting for Mccain" so one might want to consider his perspective a bit biased.

[Tommygun264]

Is Hillary Clinton selling out on FISA, or is Barack Obama the only Democratic Senator who can filibuster?

[Researchguy66]

Neither will fillibuster, but then again Hillary's not the de facto leader of the Democratic Party at the moment, is she?

[karela]

Senator Clinton is still a United States Senator isn't she? She still took the oath didn't she? There are fifty democratic United States Senators. Call your own and put some heat on. If this is the right thing to do, it could be done by someone else without taking the risk of a third Bush term. Sometimes we democrats get so high and mighty about principal that we insure that the party with the least principals is almost always the party who wins the presidency. A little pragmatism and strategy wouldn't hurt. Does principal always have to go with dumb? We've had eight years of that. Aren't you ready to do it differently yet?

[shep1900]

And I continue to believe that the fact that she _isn't_ is our great loss.

Like her or not, she would have been a hell of an effective President.

[SpoxLogic]

For all of those who think Obama may be selling out on FISA, I have the following theory:

He needs to take a pro stance on the current FISA bill because, and I hope tha I am not right -that the Neo-cons are planning some terrorist related attack either in the US or overseas against US holdings. If that happens and Obama is seen as being against FISA, the GOP can say it was Obama is soft on terrorism and the attacks are HIS fault. Therefore, by voting for it, he is covering hsi A$$. Sad to say, but, WE DO WANT him to be ELECTED, right?

I'd rather he go into the WHite House with this "cloud" over his ehad, where he will then be able to affect changes to it, than to have McCain there, and nothing will be done, for sure.

So ease up a bit, and try to think like a neocon - it's hard, but if you can you might see things a little bit differently.

[tommybones]

Glenn Greenwald had a great response to this type of shortsighted thinking:

"The excuse that we must sit by quietly and allow him to do these things with no opposition so that he can win is itself a corrupted and self-destructive mentality. That mindset has no end. Once he's elected, it will transform into: "It's vital that Obama keeps his majority in Congress so you have to keep quiet until after the 2010 midterms," after which it will be: "It's vital that Obama is re-elected so you have to keep quiet until after 2012," at which point the process will repeat itself from the first step. Quite plainly, those are excuses to justify mindless devotion, not genuine political strategies­."

Besides, he isn't backing this bill because it's politically popular (it isn't), he's backing it because it protects corrupt democrats, who were knee deep in the 4th amendment violations. Let's remember, Obama and the dems took a firm stand against this same bill early in the year and they were REWARDED FOR IT.

[karela]

Well, one thing's for sure: If McCain becomes president he'll follow along Bush's path. Apparently there are people here who see that as a viable alternative because they sure are doing all they can to help it along. Geesh!!!

[Lemeritus]

I'll say this once again: STOP MAKING EXCUSES!

There now exists wide latitude for intelligence to work effectively -- that is the argument we should be making. And, as extra special punctuation, we should never tire of reminding the country that the old, broken-down, inefficent intelligence provided warning to this president of 9/11 which he ignored!

Further, we should be shouting out that retroactive immunity is a certain path to lawlessness, not just for corporations, but in the soul of the body politic. We cannot build our house on this shifting sand and hope to make it stand!

The neo-cons are undoubtedly planning any number of things to lay at Obama's feet or with which to shroud his administration. Becoming them will not protect us from them.

[ddharder]

Faith is a dangerous thing. Faith in a politician even more so. If he won't stand on principles as important as this, what principles can we expect him to stand on?

[shep1900]

I have said many times before that he is the left-wing George Bush. It's all about winning the election. He has proven, over and over, in Illinois and Washington, that he doesn't care at all about actual _governing_.

[rwe]

Moveon sent out e-mails to urge Obama to keep his word????!!!!!!Did they send e-mails out to keep his word on campaign funding???­?Obamanati­on flip flopping you can believe in

[RRK70]

Polls indicate that Obama's WAY behind McCain on the waffle-house vote. Personally I think he'll never be able to catch up. That's why McCain is so great, there's nothing he stands for that he hasn't stood against at some point.

[kissmygrits]

His word on campaign funding was that he'd go for it if his opponent was able to control the 527s (i'm paraphrasing). Clearly, the 527s have been out for blood against Obama, so why would he agree to public financing. He didn't break his word. His word took into account dealing with the reality of 527s.

[shep1900]

The Democrats' 527s are considerably more powerful right now. And Senator Obama's decision to destroy public campaign financing and break his word will have _no_ effect on what the 527s choose to do.

He's taking the money and running. It's as simple as that.

[AnotherTry]

The answer is yes. Are you surprised? I'm not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOgJY271zbc

[ddharder]

Great article Art. Raising some of these same issues in discussions on the subject I've been labeled a trol l and worse. There really does seem to be a sense of "let's just get this guy elected at all costs."

[Tommygun264]

So it was Obama who used the "kitchen sink" strategy? Thanks for clearing that up. I could have sworn it was someone who lost the nomination who had done that. Silly me.

[shep1900]

Actually, he did--and you weren't paying attention. He pulled the race card--when it didn't needed to be brought out (news flash--LBJ _did_ help force civil rights legislation into law), and he made passive aggressive, nasty attacks throughout the primaries. "Kitchen sink" is pretty damned sexist in and of itself, mind you.

But, the media loved him, and half of the Democratic Party fell for it, and now we're stuck with a schmuck. I don't mind electing a schmuck--Senator Clinton is her own version of a schmuck--but, I wanted a tough, competent one.

Instead...­..

[sufi66]

The answer is yes.