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

[antworks]

You know something, this is sad. Mr. Obama has a lot of explaining to do. The Democrats in Congress, also have some explaining to do. Damn near anyone with a brain that has not been bamboozled by Bush's rhetoric about "it's us against them" terrorism nonsense are well aware that this administration and the telecoms violated the constitution by spying domestically. Really, it's that simple. Now, to embrace the crime in this proposed bill (soon to be a law, it appears) is like rubbing the American public's nose in the dirt, again. Who has the morality and decency to attack this scourge (Bush and his minions and their lawlessness) for what it is? And hey, Mr. Obama, I have a question for you. If Congress and you let the telecoms get away with this [They knew assisting the spying was illegal! One major company even fought the government's attempt. So, don't tell me the other phone companies and ISP's didn't know it, also.], what business will be allowed to violate our civil liberties, next? How about the medical industry and health providers? Are Americans going to be denied jobs, insurance and the like because their DNA or genome comes up on someone's "hot list" data base? In my opinion it's a valid question. Because it sure seems this nation is headed right in that direction, Mr. Obama.

[shep1900]

And, as usual, Senator Feingold has _no_ explaining to do.

I wish he had run.

[BMBTHC]

I expected Obama to move to the center at this stage of the game, but to move to the right... the neo-right? WTF?

[Gatormouth]

Hey, wait to see what comes out of the Senate on this bill. Now if this goes thru as a mousetrap. and Edwards got posted to AG... this could be a good thing for us. What we really want is discovery, right? No more hiding - what were these bastards actually doing.One criminal prosecution would would open the whole can of worms. .

June 20, 2008
MSNBC Keith Olbermann

" Olbermann and Dean then discuss the idea of letting the private lawsuits against the telecoms fade away and have someone like Obama or someone else go after the telecoms later on.

Keith Olbermann: In other words, let the private suits drop and get somebody in there to actually use the laws that still exist to prosecute and make the actual statement and maybe throw a few people in jail.

John Dean: Exactly. Exactly. It looks to me as I read this bill and I talk to a number of people in Washington familiar with the bill, and some who are involved in the negotiations, and they say, 'You know, we just didn't think about this issue.' So as it goes to the Senate, maybe Obama's got a shot to take a future look at this thing and not let them have the pass they think they're getting."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=hZaSbSRqwHE
http://openthread.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/23/0035/51973/576/540462

[KMKY]

The 4th Amendment is nonpartisan. We should not support the erosion of our civil liberties in the belief that the "good guys" will always use it for good once they are in office. Those same laws will be available for a post-Obama administration as well. And we don't know what that will look like.

[Organotic]

The real morons here are once again, the democrats. Why on God's great earth would you not wait until the election cycle is over to allow this bill to even get to the Senate? He really has no choice but to support the bill because if he does not, the Republicans will hammer him on this all the way to November. He'll be deemed as weak on terrorism and John McCain will talk about security all the time since he is clueless about anything else but security (and I'm not really sure he even understands security all that well either). Obama will get swiftboated and people that don't really understand the issues all that well will believe the attacks and become convinced that they have to vote for McCain because he is tough and understands terrorism better than the weakling that can't even protect the country by spying on its citizens. And lets face it, what is Moveon and the left going to do? Complain and vote for Bob Barr? No. They will complain and vote for Obama anyway because the alternative is far worse. In a certain respect, this is kind of a win for Obama because it makes him look like more of a moderate when the left is complaining about his policies. But what are you going to do? I do not agree with the choice but it is politics and we are in a presidential cycle.

[Schallvain]

Just like politics as usual. His entire selling point is that he is above that. Different. Hmmmm. " Never mind that man behind the curtain..."

[tommybones]

My email to Obama:

I am a registered independent voter, who also happens to be very politically active, both in volunteering my time and contributing my hard-earned money. I have slowly become a fan of Mr. Obama, in spite of my inherent skepticism. Recently, however, I received a reality check. Mr. Obama's endorsement of the House Fisa "compromise" (capitulation) was a slap in the face and a direct contradiction to the very spine of his campaign rhetoric. If Mr. Obama is indeed the candidate of "change and accountability," then he MUST take a strong stand against the bill as it comes before the Senate. In fact, he must use his power as the face and leader of the Democratic Party to KILL this bill. Anything less, including a half-hearted, politically safe "fight" against the bill that ultimately fails, will tell me he lacks the leadership to right the enormous wrongs that have eviscerated our once great democracy since the "Reagan revolution".

He needs to walk the walk. Otherwise, he's just another Washington blowhard, dressing up political cowardice as "pragmatism."

Failure of leadership in this watershed case will cause me to place my loyalty (financial, as well as blood, sweat and tears) to other, more deserving candidates; true patriots running for Congress, who stand for the Constitution, even in the face of fear-mongering and propaganda.

[tommybones]

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

“What one can blame them [German politicians and populace] for, and what shows their terrible collective weakness of character, is that this settled the matter. With sheepish submissiveness the German people accepted that, as a result of the fire, each one of them lost what little personal freedom and dignity was guaranteed by the Constitution; as though it followed as a necessary consequence. If the Communists burned down the Reichstag, it was perfectly in order that the government took 'decisive measures'.” – German Lawyer Sebastian Haffner, lamenting on the restricted civil liberties imposed under Hitler in response to the terrorist bombings of the German Parliament building in Berlin. The reduction of civil liberties after the Reichstag attack is seen by historians as the first in a series of steps taken by Hitler, which eventually led to the destruction of the German democracy.

There is nothing more important in a democratic society then vigorous defense of civil liberties. When it comes to civil liberties, those who choose "pragmatism" over liberty are cowards.

[Lemeritus]

Hear! Hear!

Signed, The Choir.

[ddharder]

"When it comes to civil liberties, those who choose "pragmatism" over liberty are cowards."

And I'd add, those who support them do so at their own peril.

[karela]

And those who forsake pragmatism are responsible for the fact that the republicans have controlled the White House for a huge proportion of the time over the last several decades. That worked pretty well at preserving liberty didn't it?

[walk0nwalls]

Thank you for succintly stating exactly what I am feeling.

[Raymondf]

I hope he is, if so he will make a good President.

[MzTexas]

I'm assuming this is response to the headline . . . the Constitution does not provide for the type of over-the-top executive powers contained in this bill. We are a representative Republic with three separate, but co-equal, branches of government . . . we are NOT a monarchy or a dictatorship which the provisions of this bill help to enable. It's the Constitution, folks . . . it's the Fourth Amendment. This transcends political candidates and the ridiculous political parties.

[tbone99]

He can't be selling us out .... he has a plan....he's shrewd....Whatever he says is ok by me, because since he's black, he's gotta be progressive... But, But...

Folks welcome to your equal opportunity corruption candidate

[martinspringfield]

What Hillary supporters must be feeling right about now:

schadenfraud (shäd´n-frôd)) noun

Grim pleasure derived from seeing the glib “change agent” primary candidate – who beat your candidate by portraying her as just another sellout DC politician – revealed as… just another sellout DC politician. See Obama, Barack and H.R. 6304, FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

[German : Schaden, damage (from Middle High German schade, from Old High German scado) + Middle English fraude, from Old French, from Latin fraus, fraud-.]

[Lemeritus]

Assuming Clinton would oppose this bill (and we can only hope she will), no American should be feeling schadenfreude its passage.

Why can't we just get out in front of this debate and say simply to the voting public that (1) this diminishes your rights under the Constitution and (2) rewards illegal behavior with immunity? How hard would it be to sell our opposition if we just, FOR ONCE, made the rules instead of trying to play by the other guy's?

[S1m0n]

Is this an attempt to claim that Hillary Clinton's position on this superior?

[meanguy]

oh,no you don't... leave hillary out of it...you 'bots wanted obama, well, you're stuck with him...

[DanBest]

Interesting. So we can expect Hillary to fillibuster this?

[ddharder]

Those of us who snubbed H in support of O who are now angered by this snubbed her in the first place for exactly these types of compromises.

[darcy]

I hope you blind, deluded O-bots are now beginning to see what you have wrought by your support of Barack Obama, a politician, if ever there was one.

[Benton]

But that is the difference between you and people who beleive in grassroots politics. We apply pressure where needed. Your type of politics elects someone and hopes the are beneficient. You just don't get grass-roots democracy.

[sixletters]

It's clear now that Hillary supporters are praying for Barack Obama to fail.

What Obama supporters now need to do is flood his office with calls, emails, letters etc.
This is the beauty of his campaign, he is depending heavily on us supporters that donated 50, 100 dollar's at a time.
What we say has a greater impact on the direction of his vote, which is why I was attracted to his campaign in the first place.

[DanBest]

Hillary plans to fillibuster?

[Kahni]

What are we to do with people who post here without reading the other posts? How on earth can darcy get the impression any real contributors here are "blind, deluded" anythings?

Are we required to accept errors from O just because we have supported him on other issues? Who is the robot thinker here, darcy?

[DTGB]

wait, a canadite who's main goal is to win? who'll SAY or DO anything to WIN?
Hmmmm...sounds awfully familiar...i'm still trying to figure out where i've heard that before?
Maybe some of you could help me here...
i guess that really is the POINT of an election, winning, but funny how it's ok for some but no so much for others.
campaign finance, FISA, telecom immunity, change in stance on leaving Iraq. All of these flip flops and now so many Obama supporters so critical of his NEW GE positions. i guess that maybe, perhaps you might've seen it coming but too many were too swooped up in the Man, the Rock Star to ever take notice that he is also a "calculatiing Politician".
Again, sounds awfully familiar to me i'm just having a little trouble placing where i've heard all of this b/f.

[LJ329]

Obama supporters! Don't be drawn into doubt by comments like this. We don't even know how this story ends yet.

It still has to go to the Senate, etc. Senator Obama may yet help create a better situation. If he sees that he can not do so right now, he will not want to be seen as quixotic and will bide his time. Hence the careful statement. He is a practical idealist. He will not step into traps but look for other avenues.

As we saw in his primary campaign, he is also a brilliant strategist. And he sees many moves ahead. He may not be able to prevent this one, but he will help restore the constitution and the rule of law in the long run.

Once he is president, like all those in political office, he will need us (his supporters) to keep up the activism and provide him with the political cover of popular support for the issues we care about. After all, wasn't it FDR who said something like "I want to do XYZ, but you'll have to make me."?

The narrative of "being disallusioned" or "losing hope" is another right wing talking point. Don't be fooled. Yes We Can!

[kestudi]

It disappoints me that Obama expects "change" to happen by unanimous decision. Surely, everyone who wants change, once they sit down and have a "sensible discussion", will agree on a "solution"! Guess what? People will fight against your change. People want different things. A fighter for change needs to be comfortable with rotten vegetables being lofted at his face when he stands up for what he believes in.

"Will you STAND with Barack Obama?"

So the campaign buzzwords are employed. And yes, my answer is, I will stand with Barack Obama, but he has to stand up first, rather than waiting until it's "practical" to stand up.

[Lemeritus]

You're the very best kind of "supporter" LJ329. And, perhaps, the very worst kind of citizen. And I say that with all due respect for your enthusiasm and hope.

[Kahni]

Does Dt's point, whatever it is, become valid by being buried in acid sarcasm?

Look, amigo, if you have something worth saying, just spit it out. If you want to add some nasty remarks after you make your point, feel free. But make the point first, OK?

[Tommygun264]

If Obama pulls through with a filibuster, there are going to be an awful lot of sad little trolls. How about we save the "I told you so's" until the deed is done. There's still hope.

[MzTexas]

Read what Obama himself said . . . he's banking on his becoming president. Once civil rights are lost, it is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to get them back. Paint it however you want to paint it . . . it is a HUGE mistake for this country.

[martinspringfield]

If Obama pulls through with a filibuster it will be because of the extreme negative reaction to his flip-flop, not because it was something he planned to do all along.

Why go through all this trouble if the idea is to come along at the eleventh hour on his white horse and save the day with tennis shoes and a catheter? Why not just stick with the position he arrived at belatedly last time this issue was forced upon him?

[oliv0128]

"tennis shoes and a catheter"???

[missusam]

Because the PEOPLE have spoken?

[wayoutleft]

i don't know how many times it has to be demonstrated that the democratic party supports all of bush's foreign policy and nearly all of his domestic agenda. i just don't know how many times democrats have to vote for exploitative capitalism like nafta and the the bankruptcy bill, and everything relating to the war, to make their point.
now comes baraipac selling out his church, promising israel to support an attack on iran (i know he didn't say that- but i get the code) breaking promises to cuba, and what have you.
i'm not telling you who to vote for. but if you like the reid pelosi congress- you'll just love baraipac.
i can tell you that- between foreign policy enforcers. credit hustlers, tin star generals, and bowlers in appalachia- you left progressives don't count among democrats. progressives are an electoral embarrassment to the democrats that won't leave the democratic party no matter how strong the hints get. you know that, though. creating a progressive party takes time and a leap of faith. i can't advise that. but i can tell you that once a democratic campaign goes national- tying progressives up in the basement is the number one priority of democrats like baraipac.

[Fotios]

Who should progressives support then?

[wayoutleft]

i can repeat this. i will absolutely not hear democratic condemnation of nader voters who vote their principles. i will not hear it. IF THE DEMOCRATS WANT MY VOTE THEY'VE GOT TO EARN IT. if they can scrounge around with right-palatable prolifers, gun guys, and professional veterans; then they can do make their case for my vote as well- AND I DON'T MEAN SUPREME COURT SCARE STORIES- I MEAN POLICIES. if the democrats fail to win a nader voters and old navy-hat wins- they need to take responsibility themselves for not winning those progressive votes- NOT blame nader voters.
it just seals the deal when democrats who vote constantly for war and exploitation disrespect the principles of nader voters.

[martinspringfield]

Not all of the Democratic Party. The majority in the House voted against it, and I can assure you that Wexler, Conyers, Doggett et al are true progressives fighting the good fight. The best thing we can do is take the party from the Steny Hoyers and other holdovers from the bad old days of the Southern Democrat.

It's our best hope to have influence and we owe it to the world to try.

[Soothsayer08]

As an Obama supporter, I was somewhat disappointed in his stance on this bill. While Dennis Kucinich has the right idea about this issue and the impeachment of Bush and his cronies, he is outnumbered and has no legitimate support. Only until Obama becomes president can he effect real change, because you must first get elected. Since getting elected means in this instance moving to the center, I still trust Obama once he becomes president to roll back this and other unconstitutional bills.First you must obtain the power and then use it for change.

[eahce]

If Obama had a shred of integrity he would have been against this bill from it's inception to present. I believe a great majority of americans are against this bill, unless of course they don't mind being treated as terrorist suspects. I was starting to hope for change, but it looks like more of the same on the way.

[martinspringfield]

He was against the last version of this (the key pboblems have not changed in the new bill), although he came to the party late, along with Hillary, to say he'd support a Dodd filibuster.

[Lemeritus]

"While Dennis Kucinich has the right idea about this issue and the impeachment of Bush and his cronies, he is outnumbered and has no legitimate support."

What has always seemed so sadly ironic to me is that WE should have been the legitimate support for Kucinich. There has never been one instance (that I know of) when he has acted contrary to those issues in which he believed. Sadder still, those are the very issues for which we have clamored and yammered. That Mr. Kucinich was, by his very steadfastness, unelectable should not have kept us from forming a voting block around him that other candidates would have to woo and pledge their troth to win the nomination.

[wayoutleft]

dennis is a big, big man next to obama

[LarBear]

Excelon helped finance Obama's Campaign for the U S Senate, after Obama WATERED DOWN a Bill to Require them to Report Nuclear leaks... They, Excelon [largest Nuclear Power Operator USA] had at least 2 leaks into groundwater in Illinois, where Obama's THEN watered down Bill (changed to "suggested," instead of "required" ) died in Committee... Obama's Campaign Manager worked for Excelon at one time... Obama got Campaign Financing help from Excelon....
This Telecom Compromise is nothing behaviorally new to Obama... It's all about getting Elected, NOT doing what's right for the USA... If one pays attention to his BEHAVIOR, rather than his words, then this is no surprise...
More appalling to me is Voters are actually again believing in their Hopes for Change... sigh... Most of the same corrupted Politicians of BOTH Branches of our Dominant Corporate Political Parties will still be in Office... WE the People allowed them to do this whole mess we are in... Dictator Bush had co-operation in both Branches of the Dominant Political Party...

[HansB]

I'm not American and so this shouldn't concern me - but it does, because a McCain presidency would be disastrous for the entire world. I'm also an avid Glenn Greenwald reader. Still, I'd like to say five things in Obama's defense (and no, I'm not an Obamabot and I've always felt that he is a centrist politician).

(1) Obama is in the process of consolidating his leadership of the party, and cannot at this precise moment in time pick a major fight with the House Dems and their Speaker, let alone accuse them of being traitors to the Constitution, which is essentially what Glenn wants him to do.

(2) Glenn and many others think the Blue Dogs would roll over if Obama spoke on this issue. I don't believe that at all. On the contrary, the bill would pass anyway and Obama would suffer a major defeat at the hands of his own party, just a few months before the election (which he would then probably lose).

(3) What makes people angry is especially the fact that the bill prevents civil suits against wiretapping. But that was always a strange way to "prosecute" crimes, and criminal prosecution is definitely preferable. Obama is very clear that he will support the latter.

(4) If the bill is unconstitutional, SCOTUS can stop it - on condition that McCain is prevented from nominating one or two Scalia clones.

(5) A lot is at stake in this election and the big picture is very big

[Lemeritus]

Hans, thank you so much for your analysis. Two weekends ago, I was talking with friends from Australia and South Africa on the international importance of an Obama presidency. I agree that a McCain victory would be disastrous and I believe(d) that Obama was the face we must present to the world.

Your 4th point is very well taken, indeed. In our despair over this bill (and many of us have been despairing of it, in all its permutations, for so long), it is of cold but some comfort to know that it's constitutionality can be challenged in the Supreme Court and reversed. Of course, the case must be brought and accepted by the Court and -- as you point out -- even that avenue of redress would be closed if McCain wins the day and appoints more abominations like Scalia..

My exception, however, is your 5th point. I grant that "A lot is at stake in this election and the big picture is very big." But just as the devil is in the details, so is the solution. The assault on our 4th Amendment rights and what amounts to government imprimatur on lawlessness by granting retroactive immunity is no small thing of itself; support for it does not bode well for our country going forward. We MUST stand for something.

[xhibi]

"(5) A lot is at stake in this election and the big picture is very big"

_________________________________________________

Yeap, so fukc the Constitution!

This ought to help us get things done right, in the bigger schema of things.

What next? Oh, by the way, remember that promise to end the war in Iraq? Well, a lot is at stake, so forget about that too.

Accountability? Are you talking to me? I am the Police mother fukcer! Now drop down and give me twenty. Not that, twenty bucks you stupid. Click the red button here.

Yes we can do business as usual in Washington!

[HansB]

No need to get angry at me. I pointed out on Glenn Greenwald's blog that the 4th Amendment already does not apply for us foreigners - and that your government eavesdrops on us as a matter of course, without anyone, not even Glenn, finding that inappropriate. Another commenter replied that all governments spy on each other. That's true, but no foreign government reads YOUR emails or listens in on YOUR phone calls, far less uses the information to capture you from your own home and render you to a country where you can be tortured. Police state powers? Bush gave them to the US regarding foreigners, and he didn't need a FISA overhaul for that. Your government is today a bully, literally an outlaw state - but with much vaster powers than any other rogue state.

So the Boumedienne case is a bigger picture than FISA. Because when habeas corpus no longer exists, no other civic right has any meaning. I'd rather a government have the right to listen in on my phone calls than a government have the right to imprison me without cause. And McCain has said clearly that he opposes the Supreme Court decision, and has ridiculed the concept of habeas itself. And Obama has on the contrary praised Boumedienne. To say or imply that McCain and Obama are two sides of the same coin when it comes to fundamental rights is simply false.

[ubetchaiam]

Again, who will have 'standing' to bring 'criminal charges'? You have the judicial system reversed; see how it played out on the OJ case; criminal action was acquitted; civil action guilty. There is a LOT of difference in criminal proceedings, e.g. 'beyond reasonable doubt' versus 'proportion of evidence' (on a simple basis).

[WAstateliberal]

What do you mean who has "standing" to bring criminal charges? The Attorney General of the United States has standing. He just won't, because he's a tyrant like his boss. The United States Attorney in any jurisdiction where an American was illegally wiretapped has standing, they just won't because they are tyrants, like their boss.

The issue is not standing. Also, in civil actions people are held liable, not "guilty." And the standard of proof in civil cases is preponderance of the evidence, not "proportion of evidence" (which makes no sense), and I have no idea what you mean by "simple basis."

Huff Po has become a cesspool of armchair non-lawyers who think they are lawyers.