Today, Barack Obama posted a message to supporters on my.barackobama.com about the FISA legislation.
I want to take this opportunity to speak directly to those of you who oppose my decision to support the FISA compromise.
This was not an easy call for me. I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses. That's why I support striking Title II from the bill, and will work with Chris Dodd, Jeff Bingaman and others in an effort to remove this provision in the Senate.
But I also believe that the compromise bill is far better than the Protect America Act that I voted against last year. The exclusivity provision makes it clear to any president or telecommunications company that no law supersedes the authority of the FISA court. In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited. As I've said many times, an independent monitor must watch the watchers to prevent abuses and to protect the civil liberties of the American people. This compromise law assures that the FISA court has that responsibility.
The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation (PDF) uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report.
The ability to monitor and track individuals who want to attack the United States is a vital counter-terrorism tool, and I'm persuaded that it is necessary to keep the American people safe -- particularly since certain electronic surveillance orders will begin to expire later this summer. Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I've chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention -- once I'm sworn in as president -- to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.
Now, I understand why some of you feel differently about the current bill, and I'm happy to take my lumps on this side and elsewhere. For the truth is that your organizing, your activism and your passion is an important reason why this bill is better than previous versions. No tool has been more important in focusing peoples' attention on the abuses of executive power in this administration than the active and sustained engagement of American citizens. That holds true -- not just on wiretapping, but on a range of issues where Washington has let the American people down.
I learned long ago, when working as an organizer on the South Side of Chicago, that when citizens join their voices together, they can hold their leaders accountable. I'm not exempt from that. I'm certainly not perfect, and expect to be held accountable too. I cannot promise to agree with you on every issue. But I do promise to listen to your concerns, take them seriously, and seek to earn your ongoing support to change the country. That is why we have built the largest grassroots campaign in the history of presidential politics, and that is the kind of White House that I intend to run as president of the United States -- a White House that takes the Constitution seriously, conducts the peoples' business out in the open, welcomes and listens to dissenting views, and asks you to play your part in shaping our country's destiny.
Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That's ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have. After all, the choice in this election could not be clearer. Whether it is the economy, foreign policy, or the Supreme Court, my opponent has embraced the failed course of the last eight years, while I want to take this country in a new direction. Make no mistake: if John McCain is elected, the fundamental direction of this country that we love will not change. But if we come together, we have an historic opportunity to chart a new course, a better course.
So I appreciate the feedback through my.barackobama.com, and I look forward to continuing the conversation in the months and years to come. Together, we have a lot of work to do.
You lost me. Your lengthy screed was all about how it's better to lose the 4th Amendment than the whole Bill of Rights. But Senator, without the 4th Amendment, the Bill of Rights is meaningless.
You have just been part of the team that bargained away one of our precious rights to a man who is an arrogant, ignorant, incompetent, intransigent monster. You cannot compromise with someone like George Bush. We didn't make you our nominee to compromise with George Bush but to OPPOSE him and reverse his terrible and evil policies.
Instead, in your article, you sounded like a politician making excuses for selling out. Sadly, it's fitting.
Money's tight. I was going to give you the maximum. Now I'm probably going to keep it for my family's expenses.
It would have been just so easy to do the right thing--28 of your fellow Senators did it.
You wouldn't mind me then sending the money that I would have donated to your campaign to the ACLU would you? I KNOW that the ACLU will fight for civil liberties with all of their might.
Furthermore, I am going to encourage others that I know who are steamed at your decision to speak with their pocketbooks. We will give to organizations and persons who actually value the US Constitution enough to FIGHT FOR IT!
How in the HELL does a former Constitutional Law professor dribble out this insufficient explanation?
This is more than a polite disagreement. Would you willing to prosecute criminally any parties that broke the established FISA laws, or will you instruct your attorney general to look the other way?
Sweet sounding words will not cover up this FLIP-FLOP
Just the idea of McCain, or any other Republican as a future President, is dreadful. 


However, voting for a weak, bending, professor of "political realties," politically calculating, facilitator of the neo-con agenda is far too painful to bear. 


Your justification and words, on this issue, are as hollow as anything Joe Lieberman has to say.
When you win, it won't be because you buckled on telecom immunity. 


So pardon me if I save me vote for you for your second term; that is, should you earn it.
First, whether the new amendment is better than the Protect America Act or not is totally irrelevant. As a professor of law in one of the nation’s most prestigious institutions, he certainly knows that FISA contained no ambiguity and its protections were ample – they were simply ignored by an administration that ordered its officers and employees to commit countless felonies under the theory that the Constitution is above FISA and the Constitution authorizes the President to do what he’s done, regardless of the provisions of any statute to the contrary. That theory, debatable as it may be, will in no way be diminished by an amendment and the usual Bush signing statement.
He wants protection? Keep the law we now have on the books and enforce it if and when he takes office. Don’t pass a law that expands the FISA court’s almost boundless existing power. Better that it were limited by appellate review. Inspector General review by an appointee of the administration utilizing or violating the law is a poor substitute for our judiciary.
This law eliminates from public scrutiny the real involvement of our legislators that, according to Gonzales in his testimony, were complicit in abusing the people’s privacy.
this is a political capitulation in an area that should transcend political differences.
While I will continue to support Obama's candidacy - my [next] Obama contribution will be reduced by tangible support for the ACLU and Russ Feingold campaign.
Our founding fathers committed (and risked) their "lives, fortunes and sacred honor" to establish our Constitutional protections. Political expedience & electability are lousy rationales for allowing them to be eroded.
(FISA is still functional & adequate!)
Re commitment to have "my Attorney General ... make further recommendations ... to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future" --
While I'm convinced of Obama's good intentions (and we all know where the slippery slope of good intentions can lead), it's a bit too reminiscent of Popeye's Blimpie: "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"
"The Inspectors General report also provides a real mechanism for accountability and should not be discounted. It will allow a close look at past misconduct without hurdles that would exist in federal court because of classification issues. The recent investigation (PDF) uncovering the illegal politicization of Justice Department hiring sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report."
Can you believe he wrote "sets a strong example of the accountability that can come from a tough and thorough IG report" The man is a complete farce. Crimes were comitted in the Justice Department, no one even gets fired let alone prosecuted and we have what Obama considers a stong example of accountability. I can see where this is going. How Nancy Pelosi-ish. Those of you that vote for Obama or McCain are throwing your votes away.
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL - BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.
"Ah, that is different!" said Boxer. "If Comrade Napoleon says it, it must be right."
He framed the issue this way: We need spying; but spying should not be immune to checks and balances; this bill ensures a judicial check on executive spying; I disagree with retroactive immunity and will fight, w/ Chris Dodd, to oppose it.
Huffposters, what in this do you disagree with, and why? The only "better" alternative is to outlaw spying altogether, something our constitution has never required. That's what warrants are for.
Barack - You're doing fine, showing again your good judgment. Keep it up, and keep communicating with the people as you do here.
Nightmare scenario - McCain wins in November, country goes down hill fast, and there's "revolution in the air." This spying could be used against anyone who opposes that administration, especially with the judicial system tilting as it is.
Ironically, guess who would be the number 1 target of the paranoid neocons? Probably Barack Obama with all his "terrorist fist jabs." What can be used for a worthy cause can potentially be used for unworthy ones in the wrong hands.
Obama '08.
... it's really eerie the similar sounding language of the sections.
Hitler's 1933 Spying Law VS Obama's Spying Law
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/07/06/18514030.php
BTW - I actually did read the entire surveillance law they are going to put through and it sounds all "nice" until you realize that all the provisions mutually contradict and are so ambiguous that it basically allows the government to do anything it wants to whatsoever.
The problem I am having is NOT with Obama, but the fact that he will not be there forever. Never let the perverbial "foot", in the door. Besides, wasn't Obama using the names and addresses from the government to challenge the petition signatures in his bid for the IL. senate race? No sir, never let that door be opened. They will most certainly abuse the opening. Example;The Patriot Act was designed to facilitate easier communication among law enforcement groups and less insight into searches and seizures where terrorism is involved, or even suspected of being involved. Unfortunately, the FBI and law enforcement agencies can – and occasionally do – use the Patriot Act on non-terrorist related activities. For instance, in 2003, the Patriot Act was used against a strip club in Las Vegas. I used to love that place,lol... All kidding aside, I can't defend Obama on this one.
There are many deals made here. This clown should be made to take his mask off. We know about him in IL.
Well done, 3in1!
- I lied to you.
- I took your money.
- I don't give a **** what you think about it.
-So?
-He's showing here that he absolutely does care and takes it into account, but is not just a political weather vane.
Good try though. Next time rtfa.
Accountability? Who, exactly, has been fired since this report came out?
Sorry Obama. My disillusionment with you is complete.