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

[eggman]

I guess I never expected Obama's actions to match his rhetoric. It's not surprising to me that he doesn't want to attack the power structure during the election. Once he's in office, he may be more of a fighter, or he may end up being another hack. Any way you slice it, he's a thousand times less objectionable than McCain. I wasn't crazy about Kerry in '04 -- were you? -- but I voted for him.

[BadCompany]

No, I didn't vote for Kerry.
At this point, I can't agree that 0bama would be better than Mick Cane.
At this point, it's difficult to argue that the Dims are better than the Greedy Old Predators.
They give them whatever they want.

[Schallvain]

Nice Irish Slur BadCompany!

[gonnuts]

This vote was covered in our local rag, The Times-Picayune, on page 12 in a throw-a-way 4 inch piece, frightening, isn't it? One of the most significant moments in the history of this country's destruction and MSM threats it with no more importance than reporting a broken traffic-light.

My bet is if you asked 100 people what the 4th Amendment states over 90% couldn't tell you and an even bigger percentage wouldn't be aware of the significance of this vote or FISA. The dumbing-down of America has been achieved.

It didn't take long for Obama to stick the knife in the back of everyone once he sowed-up the nomination. It won't be the last knife we'll have sticking out of our backs before and if he becomes POTUS.

It's over folks, the Great Experiment is over. Obama will be the one to throw the last few shovels of dirt on what was once America. Get ready for your injections and micro-chips, a full-blown tyranny is coming to a neighborhood near you real soon.

And you think that I'm overstating you haven't been paying attention to what's going on. Soon Internet 2 will effectively kill the Net as we know it. Once this goes powers-that-be could will commence with their own brand of Hitler's "Final Solution" on anyone that dares talk against the State.

Enjoy what's left of your- so-called freedom, you won't have it much longer.

[Soothsayer08]

As an Obama supporter I was disappointed in his stance on this bill. While Dennis Kucinich has the right idea on this and impeachment, you have to first be elected in order to effect real change. That means unfortunately compromise, and moving to the center. When Barack becomes president then and only then will he have the power to roll back this bill. Now he wouldn't be able to do much against a majority.

[lwfky]

No, I think Senator Obama's true colors are finally showing. I always felt that he was too weak and too much of a compromiser to do the tough job of turning this country back into a nation of laws. Obama proves that he will continue the Democratic plan, which is caving to the Republicans on all matters, including something as trivial as upholding the Constitution. God help us all with our only choices being Obama ( lesser evil) and McCain (greater evil).

[BadCompany]

Please explain why I should buy the argument that the Dims are the "lesser" evil.

[Lemeritus]

Soothsayer, we all want to think a flawed candidate will make a better president "when...." Not so.

Senator Obama is the Democratic candidate for president and, I shouldn't need to remind you, the leader of his party. His party rallies to him -- if he cannot make that happen now, with a war chest three times what the Republicans have and an ever widening lead in an election year the Republicans are ready to write off, when can he expect that support?. We can count on never being able to count on the Blue Dogs, but the ground swell of Dem support for this measure in the House would never have happened without Obama's tacit support. No one expects him to single-handedly stop a speeding train or this bill. Many of us expect him to simply walk the walk.

[lobear00]

Its time to give your vote to Dennis Kucinich if you want prosecution of the Criminals, and those in the Congress as well. Members of Congress, the Media, and Corporate America do not like Kucinich at all because they all know, they have a lot to lose if he were in the White house.
People always vote against their own best interest.

[murrieta]

Formally big-Time Obama guy here. Now , back to voting against McCain, instead of for Obama. I suspect Obama's team knows that this will play this way and figure they have no price to pay..

[darcy]

murrieta, I'm glad to hear that you can now see that the emporer has no clothes!

[murrieta]

Well, Darcy - what do we do now? I guess vote for the most palatable of the 2 politicians running (Obama)? I am old enough to remember when I first got energized in a political race - 1968 and Eugene McCarthy wanting to end the Vietnam war. I guess I had hoped Obama was something different. After this, and his backtracking on campaign funds and NAFTA - I guess I now see Barack as the same old same old...

[Kahni]

Darcy is steady in the useless contribution department. Why he's so determined to stick it to O is a mystery. He seems to have no real function other than hostility, no contribution is any real sense.

[deutchs]

Oh! There will be a price to pay, in cold hard cash. If Obama alienates his base he will see his record fund raising dry up faster than you can say sell out.

[RnR]

I'd like to propose a constitutional amendment granting representation to the American people in the federal government.

[scooperss]

I SECOND THAT.

[vietveter]

That is as funny as.................. as................ as ......... the Constitution.

[DasBoot]

Good one. You do realize though that "radical" ideas like democracy are not welcome in Washington anymore.

[zjr909]

Obama's supporters, in case you hadn't noticed, have inherited the mantle. You know: the mantle of being the premier Kool Aid drinkers. For my part, I never once saw Obama as anything more than a slick politician; so I'm not particularly disenchanted that he's willing to sell out the American people to become president. And, of course, that's the great irony: he must first sell out the voters in order to be assured of their votes. To give him his due, it's not his fault the American people are such idiots that they've fallen hook-line-and-sinker for this War on Terror crap. Nor is it his fault that they've become so brain-washed by thirty years of Republican propaganda that they no longer know truth from fiction. Nor is it even his fault that the Democrats are every bit as corrupt as the Republicans. But, by God, it is his fault that he presents himself as some sort of knight-on-a-white-horse who's going to change the way Washington does business - then turns around and supports the most corrupt piece of legislation in the history of this nation. But I'll still vote for him, hoping the Democrats take the White House and Congress. Not because I expect anything any different from them; but because I just want to prove to myself once and for all that they're no different from or better than the Republicans.

[joh]

Mr. O is a politician. His supporters are only now getting a taste of that fact. He says one thing--then does another.

[darcy]

Very well said, zjr909!

[xhibi]

Obama clearly dropped the ball on this, big time! There's no two ways about it.

Voting for McBush shouldn't be an option for anyone who wasn't for him in the first place, but still I didn't expect to get disappointed by Obama so early and on such an important issue.

He wasn't even clear (honest) as to why he supported this! I have yet to find out. He isn't gaining any hard line Republicans with this vote, yet he's loosing perhaps lots of his base and independents.

And what about principles?!

How do you justify a Bush-like decision like this?

I hope he reacts, and at least come up with an honest answer and clarification.

[SpoxLogic]

xhibi,

The honest answer is that he needs to do a bit of CYA. Think about it, if he votes against FISA and it doesn't pass - the neocons stage a "terrorist" atack - here in the US or abroad against US interests and which candidate loses?

If FISA does pass - the neocons "thwart" those same "terrorist" attacks here in the US or abroad against US interests, and claim it was the new FISA that helped them. But, guess who didn't vote for FISA ?..

Get it now?

[xhibi]

No I don't.

The Repubs will come down on Obama like a ton of bricks no matter what he does, even if he becomes Republican before the convention.

So that won't help Obama.

But even if it did help him politically, you're saying Obama is shredding the 4th Amendment bit by bit so that he can gain some political cover? That is not the change he promised and the change we want or can believe in!

Obama pissed of a lot of his base with this, and basically every other person who believes in the Constitution!

[Lemeritus]

Sorry, I don't get it at all...

This is such a specious game, from start to end, but let's play it like this:
(1) FISA doesn't pass. The neo-cons unleash their terrorist attack and blame the Dems.
(2) FISA does pass. Everyone's ass is covered (including the Dems). The neo-cons unleash their terrorist attack to get McCain elected.

Nothing about FISA passing or not passing addresses the really sickening but all too believable idea that the neo-cons are up to no good and will not hesitate to act in their own self-interest. So, since it doesn't matter, I said -- hey! -- let's defeat this bill.

[meanguy]

spox, isn't a bit warm this time of year for a tinfoil hat?

[scooperss]

pelosi with her "needing to get this done before the elections and before the 4th's recess" makes me sick.
Same excuse we've heard before. Their vacations obviously mean more to them than the Constitution or the constituents. I say give them permanent vacations from politics. They barely are in DC as it is. And when they are there, they aren't helping us with votes like this one.

And for all of you who have been excusing the dems by saying if an attack happened they would get the blame, they'll get the blame anyway. Hear callers every day on c-span blaming the dems for the economy, gas prices, the mortgage debacle, etc.
It's time to quit passing blame from one party to the other. We only have 2 parties (or 1 as some think) and they're playing us like a fiddle. Every election we end up voting for incumbents and that's so WRONG it's disturbing and we need to STOP re-electing incumbents this election.
The only change you get with electing the same people over and over, is changing those people into career politicians and crooks.

[whatsthatsound]

This is the country of , like, Paul Revere, minutemen, frontiersmen and women, "rugged individualists", Rosie the Riveter, Boy Scouts, etc.?
Politicians on all sides seem to assume we're a bunch of wusses whose only concern is to know that Big Brudda is kickin' terrorist butt, and we won't vote for anyone who won't tuck us in at night.

To quote a little known band called "Crack the Sky";
When they spit do you wipe the floor
and pray that they don't spit no more?

[Spooled]

I canceled my Obama newsletter's which ask for donations because of his position on this bill. Obama's appeal to me was his top level education in regards to Constitutional law. After his public position on this bill, I smell a double cross coming. I relate it directly to his bloodline lineage to Dick Cheney.

I am sorry people, but this is a bad sign. I am no longer on the Obama mailing list for videos or donations. I don't need to hear anything else.

It is my contention that America is no more. Good Luck!

[GLaB]

Good point about that Cheney blood. How many generations does it taint?

[pmorlan]

Greenwald has been a lifeline for those of us who are deeply concerned that our Democratic Congress is more interested in keeping their jobs instead of actually doing them by protecting our Constitution. I literally find myself checking his blog several times a day just to get an accurate update about what is happening.

This is not just any political issue as some would have us believe - this is a BIG DEAL FOLKS! If you value the Constitution don't let them fool you into believing that Obama has to do this in order to get elected - he doesn't and he musn't. Everyone who cares about the Constitution needs to contact their Senators and yes, Obama to let them all know that what they plan to do is a HUGE mistake. If you are an Obama supporter it is up to you to make sure that his first big test doesn't result in gutting the 4th amendment. You owe it him - you owe to yourself and you most certainly owe it to the country to fulfill your responsibilities as a citizen.

NOTE: Before you call anyone make sure you check out Glenn Greenwald's blog at Salon.com

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/22/calabresi/

[MasterPierpont]

If Obama votes yes on this bill I am not voting for him in November. Period. The end.

I rather stay home on Election Day than support a candidate that takes a dump on the Fourth Amendment and then tries to tell me it's for my own good.

[Bobleblah1]

Man!
There are some really thoughtful people posting tonight.
At least thats something to feel good about. There's still people
who love and want to defend the constitution. A healthy sign.
There may be hope for this country after all.

[plainsman]

After 7 years of an administration with perverted principles and ideals and a penchant for stuffing the pockets of corporations, the ideals and principles of the framers, which I thought Obama shared, are my only cause for hope. If Obama doesn't reverse himself, I'll know his 'hope' was nothing more than a helium-filled balloon. I'm so tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.

[naschkatze]

Just imagine what it would be like if we didn't have the Internet where we can link up with one another and realize that there are millions of us.

[wndrwrthg]

If he does not stand for the constitution, then he does not stand for me. If he does not stand for me, then I will not stand for him.